It’s ok TOC…NMP Viswa is still feeling the noose around the neck…so please forgive him.
It was a good report and read Nonetheless.

I read the report and thought that it painted Viswa in a very good light. What happened? And the report was quite good also leh.

Chill! Small matter. Small matter.

Very wise of Viswa …. there was an element of fear in the tone of his letter.

So, his gung ho performance in the Parliament or LKY school was just a show…. wayang.

To be a (Nominated)Member Of Parliament naturally means one is in the Political Arena of the State. Do not see the need for anyone to ‘politicize’ any Member Of Parliament in their ‘duties’ and performances as parliamentarians, be they Elected, Nominated or otherwise.

patriot

I had my doubts about this person. As I said, the first shot is always the best. Ok, back to a yes-man now, 4 years, fat (N)MP allowance. Kelong, man!

ya, i thought its was very well written…. nvm~ watever~

theforgottongeneration #5

Maybe he has found the right formula on how to become a million dollars MIW in the future….. hahaha

Just like Vivian Balakrishnan & Walter Woon….. trade their souls to LKY and become his puppet in the parliament & govt sector.

Viswa doesn’t seem to understand the Internet very well. Any attempt to remove or censor something posted on the Internet only helps give it more publicity and limelight.

Nothing can be completely removed from the Internet – even though TOC has taken it down, I easily found the article on various other websites and forums just by doing a keyword search.

It was just an innocuous article that people would have forgotten after a couple of weeks, but after this “take-down” request, netizens will be left speculating on what exactly was written in the article that prompted Viswa to ask for its removal. Was it his criticisms of the docile and politically neutered mainstream media? His comment on how the government is losing the people’s trust?

Well done TOC ! for sharing the truth with readers and being amicable to Viswa’s preference.

It was a great start for Viswa but nevertheless, the outcome was understandable when his speech attracted the attention of one despot.

Citizens should now realise a collective effort is needed to end the despot’s system of intimidation.

Dear Mr Viswa,

The moment you become a Parliamentarian, everything you do is inherently politicised whether it is at home, in the office, in parliament, on the streets or even when you have dinner with your family at a restaurant along orchard road. This means you don’t even have a private life anymore. This is the price of being a public figure.

That’s disappointing. My mean, insensitive remarks went down the drain along with the article. I suspect a conspiratorial effort against my egoist position. :(

Correct me if I wrong, Mr Viswa may realise his security concern, because he became an outspoken critic onto the PAP government as he spoke at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Mr Viswa started with “If there’s anyone from the ISD (Internal Security Department) here, you don’t have to identify yourself,” Nominated Member of Parliament, Viswa Sadasivan, told the audience at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.” We all well understood PAP’s tactic and strategy in order to hold power by all means.

I am disappointed both by Mr Sadasivan’s reasoning and TOC’s acquiescence to his request for removal.

The panel he spoke at was not for a select few “in-the-know” people. The Bukit Timah dialogues is for panelists to engage with students, and to be a member of the audience you don’t need a special status (as far as I know). Hence the argument for it to be “closed door” is wrong because it is the same as giving a speech in public, and it is by default appropriate to archive and report on it in the public domain. Thanks to Fang Shihan for taking the time to write his piece.

If the article was imbalanced because it “failed to capture the tone and spirit of the speech” as Mr Sadasivan has claimed, then he should either release the FULL text of his speech, or write to the publishing body (in this case TOC) to clarify and rebut the points he felt were made in error.

It is not the duty of a free press to get someone to “sign off and approve” on an article about them, as long as that press allows the right of reply. (Which TOC does) Any attempt to do so is basically censoring what one has said. I am glad that TOC has a policy not to get people to “sign off” on articles they report on.

However it is very disappointing that TOC has removed the initial article they published. You should have kept it up, and if Mr Sadasivan felt that he was mis-portrayed in any way, he has the right of reply (and the option of releasing the full speech). That is how free speech works, and a free press works. Unless the article was libelous or meant to defame (which it definitely was not, and one would have a hard time proving so in a court of law), it should have remained posted and not retracted.

Talking about the ideals of the pledge and of having an open and independent press all comes to nought when when push comes to shove, one cannot handle the rigours of a free press and the back-and-forth that is required when one is a public figure.

Very disappointed.

I think his response is very understandable. Consider this, he made a speech in parliament that has obviously ruffled more than a few feathers in the government, and then now his critical views of government policies, expressed in a closed doors, no media setting were published without explicit approval. He feels they were out of context, and we all know that speaking out of line, truthful or not, has gotten people into alot of trouble. I see no reason why he should not try and protect himself. In anycase, he is one of few who’s standing up and making formal issues with the government so what good is it for any of us if he gets into trouble for comments that were not meant to go mainstream in the first place?

we don’t exactly have a free press at the moment. Even more so why liberal views need to be expressed with a certain measure of care so that they don’t get crushed completely. Don’t you think that those comments would have been offensive not only to MM, but to the government and to the ST as well? If these people/bodies choose to take offense to it( and they do not always need a very clear legal case to bring someone down, I think we all know this) what do you think will happen?

Liberty is earned, not demanded. LOL :D

singapore is screwed up. twice

Sigh…. this incident has demonstrated that the NMP scheme just does not work. An opposing voice needs to be voted into the parliament by the people. The opposing voice needs to feel more afraid of the people than of the party that cuts his or her cheque. As the old saying by John Ehrlichman goes, “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow”.

Dear Mr Viswa,

Your letter is contradictory. How can you tell the public that you have said all that is to say in parliament and at IPS, when you disallow and censor media coverage?

As a media man yourself, you should know that the media will always frame your words and issues in the way they deem fit. This is how the mass media agencies, yes the ones you worked for, decorate the contexts and statements of PAP politicians and glorify them, while twisting the words of Opposition members and character assassinate them.

But that is just the nature of the media. You just have to be careful with your words. Though it seems you are now too careful with your words to this extent that you not only self-censor, you seek to censor others too. This cannot be good for the media and political culture in Singapore. We don’t really need another tyrant figure in local politics.

The solution is not a less media or no media policy in your public engagements, but a ‘more-media’ one so that there can be a variety of perspectives, including your right of replies if need be. Let the public judge your words. Is that not what the media is for?

You are no longer a private figure. You are a public one, maybe a putative politician at that. So do act like one. Most important, don’t act like a PAP one.

For this incident, I take back the respect I had just given you a few weeks ago.

Sincerely
Jack

Next time we read about PAP ministers in the ST, please be reminded of the importance of context and media framing.

Same for ST writings on opposition parties. We can be easily misled by the way these media put across the context.

TOC has done the right thing to apologise to Mr V. An agreement is an agreement. If, as mentioned, it was agreed that Mr V would be allowed to approve the subject doc before publication, this agreement must be honoured. IT’s got nothing to do with this free press thing mentioned by some posters. IF TOC agreed then it shall be so, and if Mr V had not signed off, TOC must honour the agreement to withdraw it. If there is any wrong, then the wrong should fall on TOC for the fact of agreeing to the “sign off and approve” process.

However, i do not like TOC’s comments following the apology statement.

1. IT places the blame on the assistant of Mr V. It is pointing a finger at someone. We do not know the truth the actual circumstances in which this critical event happend. Was it possible that the TOC person might have been too enthusiastic in publishing something and himself was part of the misunderstanding? Nobody knows, unless the :assistant: make a statement, which i doubt he or she would. A misunderstanding takes two persons, it takes two hands to clap.

2. TOC defends itself unnecessarily when Mr V said that he was concerned that the issue might be politicised or that parties may have hidden agenda. Why is TOC defending i don;t know. It is a well known fact that TOC readers are all politically skewed in one way. It is an unwritten statement of fact, that every blog every publication, has an agenda, a real purpose. Mr V is not wrong to express his concern in a general manner that he doesnt want his words to be twisted around or misquoted, and for this reason he wanted to sign off and approve. TOC AGREED to it, and that is all. TOC apologised full stop. I do not see a need for TOC to comment at all beyond that point, certainly it was not necessary to defend itself at ageneral statements of concern voiced by Mr V.

Remember, one of the greatest pitfalls of the present government is its consistent record of trying to defend its every action. It is very refreshing to hear of TOC’s stance of instant apology when a mistake is detected, in its style of organising things, BUT it would have been even better , had it been just a sincere apology without further defence as enumerated above. TO do so, keeping on to defend itself, reminds me of the way the incumbent government operates in recent times, which you and I know, is not the ideal way.

Iskandar

Relax, Iskandar. You’re confusing explaining with being defensive. not the same. TOC slipped up, it apologised, it explained.

Viswa : “However I cannot stand idle and see my comments or intentions misrepresented and misread – it does not serve me or the democratic process any good.”

I would argue that Viswa’s demand for TOC to remove article does not serve the democratic process any good.

C’mon Viswa, you’re just an NMP. Do you think you really represent the citizens? You’re in politics for goodness sake. How not to politicise your political speech? Blah – so much for NMP. TOC should have just ignored him.

another Vivian in the making … if he is invited to speak at LKY school, chances are he is pro-pappy. Bring back Siew KH to NMP!

in general, once a person is in the public eye, especially in Parliament, his communications become a matter of public interest. In this case, the only thing credible I find is that the LKY event was supposed to be a closed door session.

Other than this, probably VS has just started his NMP term and he feels that such a hot start need to be ‘cooled down’.

On the other hand, there will never be perfect stereo clarity to anything such that matters are always objectively clear to everyone. One can think objectively but not everyone can think or say objectively and it will always be subjective, even for someone like LKY who candidly disagree with the former PAP lefttists’ views or contents reflected in the MIW book. And yet LKY autographed the book and at least publicly did not censure the leftists.

Let’s put it this way, it is already 50 years ago. Time is wonderful but precious resource.

dear viswa, if u’re so worried about your words taken out of context, don’t say anything at all. In fact i predict that from now on, since u’re so fearful, there’s probabl nothing else of interest to come in your public speeches.

Let us not blame Viswa’s Sadasivan because very few have the courage to openly speak up (and defend what was said) in a totalitarian regime .

Viswa is a PAP man. PAP’s corrupting influence has come a long way, tainted many a would-be trust-worthy politican (e.g. V. Balakrishnan), once they join the PAP or become an NMP, they are not to be trusted.

Only non-PAP and especially those in the opposition are to be trusted.

Those of us who are not satisfied with the PAP-government should should vote for the opposition.

The LKY School of Public Policy is a joke, it should be called “LKY’s School of Nepotism and its Cronies”

come to think of it, it’s like expecting cyber multi tabbers to be fully embracive of healthy diversity, to be expecting that a man like mr v, like most, who has never lived in a free society to be behaving like a free man, regarding self censorship and stuff.

it would be placing a great underestimate of the totalitarian brain implants of the white zombies, and therefore overestimating the damage that we must seek to undo in the coming election.

i think that’s the kind of context we have to see this in. conceptual democracy is not real democracy, aspiration is not the same as reality. the difference is, we don’t reference to a gap of centuries between the two, and wrongly assume the indigenous as our slaves, and in one breath claim that to be bringing the house down to earth

that’s the kind of brain one would have under that kind of system. and we are not exempt, neither the fans of the whites nor haters. the variable is the degree of damage.

the axiom for the evolution of singapore is, first and foremost, the evolving of our minds out of the totalitarian system, nothing short of that. and, ultimately, pap logic is obsolete and the most i can allow them is a tiny section in our future history books, titled greater mortals in permanent disbelief.

Self censorship, climate of fear.. all demonstrated in this sad incident. Thanks Viswa, for showing us you’re not different from us. Sadly, this is the Singapore we live in.

if Viswa is so kiasi, then don’t play with fire or is this just another wayang show from pap?

pap is growing cancer cells inside us, do nothing and u die of slow & painful death.

do something and u may recover, of course lots of effort and pain, but ur life is worth it!

start by changing ur mindset, there is no such thing as singapore cannot live without pap or the old man.

Viswa assumes that those who were physically present at his seminar would have a uniform opinion and perspective of his discussion. This is false. We all form our different opinions, and we are entitled to do so. By disallowing media coverage and proactive censoring, he is preventing the media from doing its proper work – disseminate information for public discourse.

I fail to see how his actions promote the ‘democratic process’ that he talks about.

When he spoke in parliament couple weeks ago, he mentioned strongly that democracy is important. Now, he wanted TOC to withdraw it. Exactly where does he stand now? I hope being an NMP, he should not be afraid to help the people since he already understood what is happening on the ground and has everybody supporting his speeches. We need him to open up more to voice out for us and not keep himself in the closet & jittery after making his first speech in parliament. Fear is to admit defeat and that is what the ruling party loves to see to keep themselves constantly in control of our lives.

Mr. TOC, are you sure you are allowed to “politicize” Mr. Viswa’s letter?

I guess I should not be surprised if I see another retreat exercise tomorrow.

so he’s just creating smokescreen for the government. he must be very good at it since he’s able to speak for close to an hour in parliament.

Hey, Mr VS, what’s the problem?

You sound like the PAP.

If you can’t take the heat, get out of public life.

You are all kidding yourself if you’re going to take idealistic points and try to get someone to apply them puristically in an environment that does not allow for it. It’s very easy to sit and watch from the ground, without realising the intense pressure that one faces when taking a critical view of the government. Talk is cheap man. Try getting up there and doing it yourself if you feel so strongly about him being a coward.

Politics is much more than ideals, there is a certain amount of manouvering that one has to do, especially when there is an authoritarian body that dominates. It may not always appeal to the populist view, but there are certain rules of the game that you have to play or you will get severly burnt. Look at our dear friends from the SDP or any other dissident who has firmly believed and exercised free speech, irrespect of the consequences. They are not exactly contributing to the democratic process by getting shut away.

13) Lips wrote:

“If the article was imbalanced because it “failed to capture the tone and spirit of the speech” as Mr Sadasivan has claimed, then he should either release the FULL text of his speech, or write to the publishing body (in this case TOC) to clarify and rebut the points he felt were made in error.”

I think Lips is right on the money–you can’t “capture the tone and spirit” of any public address–even videos are inherently biased, since the editing (already) reflects the editorial choice of one of many possible viewers. The only and best solution is to have the full transcript released–that is as objective as one can get.

As much as a I respect Viswa, his demands for TOC to take down the article were heavy-handed. Once you allow media coverage, from any agency–you can’t really control the content, so long as its not defamatory. So that “tone and spirit” thing is, in fact, rather idealistic and even unreasonable. All press involves the interpretation of events–unless it is propaganda.

If you are getting allowance every month from taxpayers, it is your duty and your job that important issues that affect lives of people in the country are brought up and debated. This is public service not private sector. It is not an excuse to say that if there’s a dominating authoritarian body, then one should be afraid to bring up any ideas that can improve or benefit the country. Who are these people in the parliament accountable for, the 4-5 million people in the country or their paymaster, the person who signed off their payroll every month ? If it’s the latter, then should not be in public service, better join private sector

Well said. I agree with nobody!

Let’s not forget that it was TOC who had breached the terms of agreement, and for obvious reasons you and I know – they had already made-up their mind as to how they would like to interpret Viswa’s message to achieve their own agenda…I mean, if they used what other people says, then tweak it a bit to fit it into their agenda, they would not get myself into trouble. After all, they can feign ignorance by saying that TOC was merely reporting what Viswa says.

Andrew Loh and the various writers/editors of TOC had been manipulative in their reporting, believe me, they will not stop at doing it again in future!

this whole fiasco will not be happening in any civilized country around the world. individuals will say without having to say behind close doors… reporting will be done as how its interpreted without having to get permission for it to be published…

50 years ago Singapore was not an industrialized country but it was a civlized country where the above was already occuring… today 50 years later Singapore is an industrialized country but not a civilized country… is the price to pay for economic development a soul?

TOC, a very well done job..Just report to truth,let the reader decide.

forget about this guy called Viswa, put our efforts into supporting opposition parties.

Yes,Mr Viswa,

Whatever is yr motive,I hope you do not have the vision of becoming another Ms Vivien,Mr Raymong Lim,and mr Walter Woon.that is 4 peanuts a year lah.

All of us still have vivid memories of their past performance.

TOC might have made this mistake. BUt good thing is this incident shows Viswa now wants to stave off media. This reveals his fear, and backpedalling, wanting to keep a low profile. I find that embarrasing

Viswa, you have just lost your greatest fan club.

TOC and its readers started off as great supporters. By drawing attention to something that would have passed innocuously, you have made a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Good luck. You’re on your own for the next two years.

Was the speech made under Chatham House rules and spirit of discussion? If it was, then it should have remained behind closed doors.

But if it was a public seminar without those rules, then I think this is not the best way forward.

#Peter sellers } TOC is nothing compared to those bridges with the media establishment that he doesn’t want to burn.

He is now a politician…everything he says is politicizing, and everything he says and does is open to scrutiny and comment, if he does not like it he should resign now.

As for not liking the tone…I wonder what dressing down he got behind closed doors after his maiden parliament speech that makes him tread so lightly now…

Just when we thought we saw the rising of a national hero…shish…guess it was just a whole load of smoke and din, that’s all to this guy.

I think we should give him more chances…instead of criticizing him over one incident….

it is so superficial that we praise him when he said the right stuff and shortly after flame him for this…

I felt so betrayed. After reading his maiden speech in parliament and having been in a state of euphoria for the past few weeks in rejoicing the birth of a counter-voice, his single reply here has totally wiped out the respect I have for this fellow. He has not even lasted a term and already so kiasi ?! Kelong and wayang, I say to him now. Go back to your media job and be a state voice instead.

So much control? Usually when you go for these lectures, there is no mention that the media is not invited or not allowed to report. Why such a “rule” for Viswa’s invitational seminar?

Viswa cowers under the weight of one outburst from the octogenarian. He is not a leader.

TOC has nothing to be apologetic about. This is citizen journalism as it should be.

This only goes to show that It is always better to stick to our own opposition party leaders not the ones(NMPs) ‘appointed’ by the gahment.

He must be under the obligation of the dictator,can’t blame him. though.

A good person on the wrong side.
But then, this is Singapore, & the ‘Wayangs’ don’t end do they?

Agree, it’s small matter. What more important is we have read, already.

Initially I was very impressed with viswa guts in his speech but now I am a disappointed man as I sensed his gut turns cowardly and retracting his tail between the legs. The questions are: Is he really concern and sincere in Singaporeans or himself and his family only? Probably he knows too well how the government corrupts the body and mind of man with opposing viewsinto PAP camp with $$$$$$ if not enough more $$$$ more $$$ until millions $$$$. So opposing is more important or $$$$$. God also know right. History is repeating again on making from NMP becoming a minister in the paliment soon. LHL said the intention of increasing the number of NMP is to encourage more opposing views into paliment so that it can be debated, but alas, got heart but no strength to carry through. All kelong loh. I believed more so in scouting for strong opposition member and buy them over so that they can be in power forever, Afterall, $$$$$ don’t come from their own pocket what. I sensed that viswa is playing his way into the PAP camp. Don’t spit on me ah… only my senses and views only loh. Don’t politise and spread or twist it ok. I am not a SDP supporter but a PAP voter over and over ah. I voted for LHL in the last errection ok.

feel sad for viswa…sorry seem the hardest words
now are you all pleased or pissed? beside bein cheeses off
what is the point of bein norminated an NMP post when you speak, you must toe the party whip? we have 82 pap mps already did the biddin, now the norminated nmps also kannaed liked that so our royal highness the prime minister just terminate all the nmp why wasted resources on somethin you/your father want to control?

Just wondering, are there any sites out there for the intelligentsia to talk about politics?

I think every man holds the right to control how he is being portrayed. The fact is NMP Viswa felt TOC did not portray him in a manner that he felt was accurate.

This could be an opportunity for TOC to reflect if they really do see things through antagonistic lenses, issuing articles that tend to polemics.

If you are attacking the Govt, then so be it. But don’t proclaim to yourselves and others that your words and views are neutral and uncoloured. If you do not intend to be so belligerent, perhaps its time to reign in the dogs.

*rein

As someone mentioned.
This guy will be painted white when he finishes his term as NMP.
As usual this is a very clear scenario about our young especially those showing the very first signs of potentially politically inclined talents.They would eventually melt away into the moulds of the PAP.

He afraid he be JBJed

Deluded. LOL :D

i think if online citizen agree to let him sign off then this must be done.

regret that online citizen did not get it done.

but at least online citizen say sorry.

and lucky nobody get sue.

To say I’m disappointed is an understatement. I take back all the good things I said about Viswa earlier. They were spoken too soon.

False dichotomies. LOL :D

Actually i was surprised when Mr Viswa allowed his speech to be published here before he spoke on Parliament. It is like he ignored parliamentary proceedings.

Moreover, TOC is painted as an anti establishment political blog and no NMP wanted to be aligned with the site.

Anyway, we all have eyes to see and the report was to me factual and with no hidden agenda.

Keep up the good work TOC. You did well too Mr Viswa with your maiden speech which also attracted our MM Lee Kuan Yew to defend himself in Parliament for a long time. Good work!

Reader @ 61,maybe u can try reading the running dogs ST. TOC is doing a great job. THank u TOC.

I guess people wants a “anti-pap” to appear, because they are not happy with the idea of monopoly.

To be fair, Viswa never meant to be ‘anti-pap’ or he will be in opposition. He is suppose to present his own views- and that may be or may not be in agreement with the pap, depending on issue. nevertheless, he is suppose to present his own views.

the problem comes when MM took the trouble to respond to him personally, making it look like a face-off. now people start to project their anti-pap hopes on him, a stance he never took. and probably the article, which provides selected quotes, seem like it’s portraying him as anti-pap hero. (or at least to him).

tat is the problem- he is not meant to represent the 33% of the population. That is WP, SDP’s job. He is suppose to present his own opinion, (concurring or otherwise) given his background (the media industry).

it’s a funny situation where he does not self-censor for fear of govt, but self-censors because people project their expectations on him, portraying him as someone he is not- “sharp, even belligerent and self-righteous”.

Viswa is so chicken shit.

With due respect, Viswa is a very courageous man who is sincere about helping to change the political climate in our country. But in his enthusiasm, he was sometimes carried away by his emotions and tended to be over emotional. But on the whole, he is one of a very few who dares to speak his mind.

Unfortunately, he has yet to be acclimatized to the reality of the current political environment and is insufficiently sensitive as he should be and be more patient in wanting to bring about change to our political system. Nonetheless, he deserves our continued support. Instead of criticizing him, we should all give him more time to get used to the operations of the online media.

The TOC is equally courageous in trying its best to present the truth to its readers. But it also needs to be understanding of the feelings and sensitiveness of the newsmakers. We all have to cooperate closely and promote mutual understanding to achieve our common goal. It is going to be a long struggle!

Yet again we see the fear in singaporeans and this time in our NMP. Fear of being watched by the government.Fear of loosing his allowance which is by no means small.

Are they supposed to speak up for the people with no ties to any party or government and also. They were given this appointment chosen not by the people but in a way by the government to speak up but not speak up too loud,

So we can see the fear factor still exits in singapore, This is a classic example. Who knows maybe the old man himself could have given him a buzz and told him to watch it or out you will go!

Hello folks, what do you want him to do? Just NMP. just know how to talk but whencome to actual suitation. chicken out!

So all brothers and sisters, just remeber to vote for real opposition MP to respresent us in the House. Don’t let the PAP control the House. Whether to change it now will depends a lot on us.

TOC, keep up the good work, and keep the polemical articles coming.

Japan opposition unseat LDP…wow…amazing.
Now back to Chingapore…

I read the TOC report that was removed.

Such irony that V alluded to current generation of reporters lacking the mettle to question and hence losing credibility, thereby implicitly suggesting perhaps that his generation of media workers or himself has more guts or fire.

Yet a simple online coverage later and he heads for cover, requests editing. Either he is naive or he wishes to manage the coverage. Just goes to show he does not understand new media at all.

Malaysia done it,amerca done it and now Japan.
So when will Singapore do it..??

Hmmm after reading the Letter,I must say that those seated in the house in the future now got to be walking carefully along the thread.
Cos It may cause someone to be fully upset.

To RW.

In any free and fair election (in Singapore) the PAP will suffer the same fate as the LDP of Japan. LKY and his cronies would be soundly defeated. He and his famlilee can take refuge in Burma.

Gilbert Goh “Moreover, TOC is painted as an anti establishment political blog and no NMP wanted to be aligned with the site.”

What?! You mean this is not a site for anti-establishment ideals? Damn, I’ve gone to the wrong site. :(

Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet him and you may call him Viswa.

- 77 “Such irony that V alluded to current generation of reporters lacking the mettle to question and hence losing credibility, thereby implicitly suggesting perhaps that his generation of media workers or himself has more guts or fire.”

Seems like Viswa only dares to say what he said BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. No media allowed, please.

He is after all a Singaporean, much like the keyboard warriors we have here. :D

We need garang politicans.
Or should i say, politicians need to be brave people with unwavering will and determination.
Anything less may not stand the test of time.

examples : Gandhi, Mandela, Thatcher, Lincoln to name just a few.

Another stupid prima donna in the making? Utter rubbish! Just remember u r only a NMP..nothing more. If he cant take the heat…next time just be a sitting duck and shut up!

The many comments – mostly critical of my decision to request that the article on TOC be taken out – are expected and reasonable. I anticipated a reaction when i made the decision (which was not easy) after careful consideration. Similarly, i anticipated a reaction (and not just a response) from government when i delivered my maiden speech in Parliament two weeks ago – although, i must admit, i did not expect it to be as robust or assume the complexion it did.

I would like to make a few brief comments, not so much in response to the many comments by the netizens in TOC, but to clarify my position in the spirit of discussions in the online media. I am doing this because i feel i need to recognise and respect the many contributors to TOC with a considered response.

a) My appreciation to the Editor of TOC for graciously acceding to my request, even though he must have anticipated criticism. This showed maturity and equanimity – values that, over time, will command respect and credibility.

b) I stand by what i said in Parliament in my maiden speech and in my summation of the debate that ensued. I didnt have to make a maiden speech and i certainly was not obliged to raise the issues i did. I chose to speak on them and in the manner i did because they are important points/arguments that had to be raised in Parliament for debate. I chose to move a “substantive motion” in Parliament (something that is not often done by backbenchers, and certainly not by NMPs) because i feel strongly that we, as a society, need to reflect further on the basic tenets of the Pledge and find ways to better align our policies and practices with them. I wanted a debate in Parliament and also amongst Singaporeans/PRs from all walks of life – and moving a substantive motion in Parliament was the best way (if not the only way) to achieve this. [Point of clarification: i did not release the text of my speech to the media - mainstream or online - or to anybody else (other than to Parliament) before i delivered it in Parliament. This, in spite of several requests.]

c) Similarly, i stand by whatever i said in my off-the-cuff speech delivered last Wed in the LKY School of Public Policy – something i committed to two months ago. [The fact is i would not have agreed to make this speech now if the request came after my maiden speech in Parliament - simply because i feel i want to step back and observe and reflect on the response from all fronts to my speech in Parliament. It is very important to maintain clarity - of content and intent - when something as significant happens, especially when you happen to be at the centre of it. It has nothing to do with fear per se. It is about being cognizant of the impact of what you are saying and making sure you continue to say what you mean and are willing to be accountable for as you push the boundaries - for socio-political and legal considerations. Anyone who has been in a similar situation would appreciate what i am talking about here - it is the responsible, sensible thing to do.]

d) When i spoke at the LKY School, the assumption was that it would be governed by “Chatham House” conventions i.e. that it is closed-door, non-attributable and not open to media (mainstream and online) coverage. This is not unusual. There are many issues a speaker is comfortable and willing to be engaged on in a “Chatham House” setting, that he/she would not otherwise. In the case of my speech at the LKY School, it was not just an understanding, but an agreement. It has nothing to do with my belief in freedom of expression or democracy (yes, things i referred to in my speeches), but about an agreement. It is a speaker’s prerogative to make clear the conditions under which you will speak and be engaged – and i exercised that prerogative. I make no apologies for this decision. My decision was predicated primarily on my desire to step-back and reflect on responses to my maiden speech in Parliament, which was still on-going i.e. instead of opening a fresh thread of discussions on a different front.

e) I accepted my appointment as NMP, in spite of the awareness of the many demands it would have on my time at home and work and my peace of mind, because i felt the time was right for me to make a contribution at this level. I also felt i was in a position to make a meaningful contribution to Singapore and society. How do i see my role? Very simple – a responsible, non-partisan role serving the interests of my country and fellow Singaporeans. I am not there to oppose the government or the PAP as a political party. This means that my views may be critical of the government/the establishment and its policies and practices where i see the need for this, and at other times i would be happy to lend support to the government/the establishment and its policies and practices when they serve the interests of our country and our people. In either case, I must endeavour to speak honestly, with integrity and without fear. I am also committed to acting responsibly in my capacity as NMP. This would translate to three things essentially: ensuring my submissions are factually correct and well researched; that they don’t detract from conventions of good taste and standards as understood in our society; and finally, not playing to the gallery, so to speak i.e. not losing my integrity and motivation to speak in the best interest of the country and our people, and succumbing to the lure of popularity. It is a pity that over the past few weeks i have seen comments suggesting that i am an actor (possibly even a lead actor) in a government “wayang” i.e. that i was “planted” to give a semblance of debate in Parliament etc etc. For me, this is yet another example of the level of cynicism amongst so many Singaporeans, especially in the intelligentsia.

f) my final point is that i have the right to protect my interests. Self Preservation, to a reasonable extent is my prerogative. i will not apologise for this. When i assume public office and especially when i know i am pushing the boundaries and therefore coming under sharper scrutiny, it is reasonable and sensible for me to be mindful of the political and especially legal implications of what i say, or appear to be saying. Again, i hope we dont see the need for us to take a “you are with me or against me” stance here. In this regard, just because i ask for the article on my LKY School speech to be taken off TOC because for me this is not what i agreed to when making the speech and when what was written (in my view) was not sufficiently faithful to what i conveyed in my speech and Q&A session – it does not mean i am going against TOC or being anti-democratic or that i am going back on what i argued for in Parliament and at the LKY School. i say, honestly and without hesitation, that a good part of my decision was predicated on self-preservation i.e. to ensure that what i said in the LKY School is not misread, misunderstood by the ground, the intelligentsia, the mainstream media and yes, the government. It is also my prerogative to ensure i am not unduly or unnecessarily exposed to libel suits. I know this is the path that some of our worthy politicians have had to take in pursuing their belief. Let me make no pretence here – i dont intend to take that path. This certainly does not mean i am not prepared to speak up on issues that matter to me and that push the boundaries and that challenge status quo. I have and will continue to do so, when i see the need for it in the interests of Singapore and our people. Heroes are important, especially when we are at a point of inflexion, but dead heroes are of no use to anyone, at least in the Singapore context.

Let me end by extending my thanks to the many over the past few weeks who have supported what i said in Parliament, and especially those who have taken time to express how what i said made a difference to them as Singaporeans. For those of you who have been critical of my comments, suspicious of my motivations or who vehemently oppose my decision to ask for the TOC article to be taken off and the manner in which i did so – i take your comments on-board for reflection, even if i may not agree with some of them at face value. As i said in Parliament on 19th Aug 2009 (in my summation of the debate on my motion) – it would be great if we can agree, but if we cant, that’s alright too, as long as we continue to listen to each other and agree to disagree. This is the democratic process.

Thanks for taking time to read my comment.

Regards
Viswa Sadasivan

typical non-risk-taking, play-safe singaporean

Viswa: “It is also my prerogative to ensure i am not unduly or unnecessarily exposed to libel suits. I know this is the path that some of our worthy politicians have had to take in pursuing their belief. Let me make no pretence here – i dont intend to take that path.”

Your calm response is appreciated. But your implicit acknowledgement of our over-legalistic, authoritarian political culture is something I would rather you take a clear stand against. No wait.. self-preservation…

May Singaporeans await another hero to emerge.

“it would be great if we can agree, but if we cant, that’s alright too, as long as we continue to listen to each other and agree to disagree. This is the democratic process.”

This is what most Singaporeans would want…..highlighting this aspect of democracy is a job well done…man.

However, this speech at LKY’s school was a good one and I don’t see it skewed but factual. It is sad tough, not to share such toughts and ideas to create construtive tension to improve Singapore.
Further, being an NMP is, being in the public arena, one should not shy away from putting forth good ideas.

Nevertheless you are a smart man and we have to respect your decisions.
Thank You

The question, Viswa, is this: are you saying the things you talked about at the LKY School of Public Policy were libelous?

What were these things that were discussed in an academic setting but cannot be discussed with other Singaporeans?

Why did you take the route of asking Andrew to take down the article, rather than pointing out the inaccuracies in the original article?

Is the libelous nature of the government not something worth speaking out against, or is it not an NMP’s job to “go that far”?

Many questions.

oh dear! seem that Mr Viswa Sadasivan wanted to censored the internet! this has negative impact on his name.

Chatham House Rule? Since when Singapore endorses such practises? From the NUS internal circular, there was no mention of the Chatham House Rule. I think if the organisers had made it clear, this incident could have been prevented.

The nice thing about the Internet is that the censored article now has a life of its own.

Viswa has ‘fear’ that someone might ‘fix’ him if his post has been discussed further….Tsk tsk…

Now guys, even if you have some doubts about his intentions privately, there are many other ways such feelings can be conveyed in a more diplomatic way.

I think Mr. Viswa needs to be given the benefit of the doubt and to engage readers here in his own capacity already shows his strong character and understanding of the importance of engagement, even those whom he may know are of strong opinions.

That has to be commended. Some of us may disagree with his actions, but we shouldn’t leave our personal respect for him just because of such disagreements. Such disagreements are of professional reasons, not because they are personal and so we should engage him in a more diplomatic way that reflects what this is. I thank Mr. Viswa for his engagement, and I hope in his time as an NMP, he will continue to contribute to this country in the way he sees fit and of which will benefit the outlook of our country.

Useless NMP scheme that produce useless NMPs that have lost touch with the ground and keep promoting his own “highfalutin ideas” instead of addressing to real-life issues. Who is pushing what boundaries at which position ? what democracy ? Where is the danger of racial discrimination in the country ? Is this a distraction from retrenchment, low employment. help for poor-income families, indiscriminate influx of foreigners, stressful life, deteriorating quality of standard of living, healthcare system that needs major improvement ? Why aren’t the NMP addressing these issues and stop wasting time and resources on their somewhat loftly ideals, debating on it and making a mountain out of a molehill from it.

I have been following this site ever since Viswa’s maiden speech happened in Parliament. While I found the comments that ensued lively, interesting and revealing, I do feel that it has gotten too caught in black or white, this or that. As someone put it earlier, Viswa is not the voice of opposition, as much as we would like to believe he is. At best, he is someone who is in a position to voice his concerns on where Singapore is going. Thus far he has demonstrated the courage of conviction to do that. He is also someone who appears to be very in touch with the ground and so as he expresses his views, he also attempts to convey the dissatisfactions and concerns of the others on the ground.
In this regard I do feel he is an ideal candidate for NMP. I also feel that instead of swinging from one extreme to the other, we could as a citizens’ forum in cyber space, appreciate the greyness of this situation. For while it is the grey zone that is the most difficult to exist and operate in, it is here that much meaningful growth and change could happen. And sometimes that change does take time to happen. Let’s not be impatient and overly emotional. Viswa has thrown the pebble into the water – let’s wait and watch. And give him our support. Let’s not kill the goose that lays the golden egg!

Dear Viswa,

Tsk Tsk, Only a few weeks into your NMP stint and you have come up with so many provisos, qualifications and exceptions… which i read as just plain excuses.

My My …what will come of the rest of your stint? I shudder to think that it will be no different from the nameless and faceless NMPs and PAP MPs who are quite contented to collect their chks at the end of the month and show up occasionally for the give-angpows-to-the- old session and the token feel good speeches..

The only way you can save yourself from further indignity and total loss of credibity is to resign as an NMP. As you said, dead heros are of no use. Where I am concerned you are now basically “dead” in the water. You have no more credibility with the on-line media and the establishment already detests you. Whatever you say and do from now on will be meet with cynicism and I dare say contempt even, from now on.

You tried to toe the fine line to get the best of both worlds. Sorry friend, this is the real world and you need to decide whre you are. Unfortunately you have tripped badly with your prevarications.. Best you resign and redeem yourself. When the time is right, you can come back and fight another day. And when you do, take a firm position and stay with it.

Viswa, as you said, bruise knuckles are a sign that you tried.

I give you credit for engaging commenters and readers here. As far back as I can recall, no PAP MP, opposition MP or NMP has ever done so, at least as openly as you.

For that, I am willing to hear you out. ;)

I’ll give you a yellow ribbon. Work hard for a medal. Dust off the criticisms and move forward, my friend. It’s the only way to prove your critics wrong. ;)

perhaps should consult PM to see what he think about his performance, whether to stay or go.

Opposition in Japan just unseated the LDP…after 54 years of nearly unbroken rule…
Japan has shown it can happened and it just did at the polls.
People power…that’s what this place needs…NMP is only one person.

In any kind of battle, it is sometimes prudent to backtrack or retreat. So there is no shame for Viswa to do so under the circumstances. it is understandable.

the old fart himself was a coward rather a hero when Spore was occupied by the Japs. Otherwise the world would be constantly reminded about his heroism.

the point is, it is easy for the old fart to bully citizens including Viswa in this case when he has the law and security apparatus in his pocket.
reverse the situation for old fart and you will surely see the coward that he is.

if the old fart is doing a good job and well respected, then he should be confident of winning easily with all wards reverting to single seat contest.

I feel Singapore is increasingly in a rudderless state, stuck with old formulaic ways of thinking and doing things. We have failed to reinvent ourselves. This one NMP-related issue is insignificant though emblematic of our lack of freedom and boldness in thinking and collective expression.

Dear Viswa,

You have done a FANTASTIC job and you will continue to have the support and respect of the vast majority here. Don’t be discouraged by the critical comments from those with ill intention to run you down. Giving yourself up would fall right into their trap.

Yours Faithfully,
Admirer

Open letter to Mr. Viswa

Dear Viswa,

Only a fool would not realize that the PAP government is a totalitarian regime that pretends to be a democratic government. The hallmarks of a democracy are a free-press, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, unbiased judiciary. All of these are missing in the PAP government. After 40 years of “nation-building”, about 40% of the citizens of Singapore are just above the poverty line.

In a word the PAP government is a complete failure.

The only way for you to redeem yourself after this saga is to i) resign your position as an NMP ii) join an opposition party (RP, SDP or as an independent) and stand against a PAP candidate in the coming general election.

Being an NMP only contributes to the machinations of the PAP into bluffing the free-world that Singapore is a democratic country.

There is no point in speaking in LKY School of Public Policy or any of the PAP think-tanks because they are faithful dogs who listen to the old man’s voice and bidding.

JW, only a fool would make such a statement.
Only a fool would polarise the political spectrum to being for or against, with us or against us, black or white, pro or anti.
People like you are why I often think twice about whether democracy is the best thing for our country.

By misleading the people with his beliefs and subsequently going back on his words, he should voluntarily resign his post as NMP.

mr viswa sadasivan is taken in by PAP and LKY, all against one and that is not what he wanted. we felt sorry for you as we understand what will happen to you and your entire family if you take further step against PAP and LKY. you will be the next Vivian Balakrishnan that you must prove all singaporeans it is wrong and you shall stand in opposition side and fight for us as you give your words and we will give our hands to hold you along with us or you can sit together with Ms Vivien,Mr Raymong Lim,and mr Walter Woon and regret of your decision you made. don’t be surprise as you sit in PAP side and we all singaporeans vote totally on opposition and where do you think you will be sit next?LKY will ask you to go home nest as he already don’t need you coz you are the threat to LKY and LKY fear all singaporeans will listen to you and stand against PAP. with or with you mr viswa sadasivan we will stand for our rights and vote PAP OUT!!!!!

you have open the eyes of all singaporeans and even you turn your back on us we will still go on and vote PAP OUT!!!!! this is a PROMISES to our land and a promise that we will we hold till the next election!!!

viswa sadasivan. if you are strong enough stand with us and if you need us to stand by your side during a speech on public and to stand by your side in any vote that you want, we will give it!! you must be wondering how many of us is here to stand by your side as we are just bunch of 10 to 30singaporeans maybe and would not take the risk. you are totally wrong!!!

we didn’t really want to mention yet our amount of singaporeans stand for opposition and will vote the opposition. we just give you a figure and you do your maths. we are reaching 7,530. what will you think the amount will be in the next election to come? we too have family and children we too have fear to go against LKY AND PAP but how long are we going to live in this fear??!!!! enough is enough!!!!!! we are no fools. we are voting PAP out!!!

#73 sentiments reflects my own.

Let us acknowledge that Viswa took a courageous step in making that maiden speech.

Among the NMPs, Viswa had the balls to articulate his feelings / observations on the current state of our nation and her policies.

In his willingness to speak up, let us see Viswa for what he is (and what he has done) and not write him off with simplistic dismissive remarks.

It is heartwarming that Viswa has came in here to clarify as well as declare the role he will play as an NMP. He had clearly stated his neutral position of not siding with PAP or the Oppositions. And his maiden speech in Parliament did reflect that he was not making any personal/political party reference and had focussed on the National Pledge and how he has perceived as failure of State Policies to actualize the Spirit of the Pledge.

Viswa has also iterated his worry of getting himself into difficulties with the Laws citing instances of non-specific previous cases that resulted in ‘dead heroes’. Singaporeans are of course, very awared.

As it appears, Viswa has been candid and frank in his Comment at #87.

Voice Of Concern #97 said it well, let’s give Viswa the time to show himself, i think Viswa has valid concerns with regard to his political journey which in SIN, could be paved with treachery.

patriot

I think Viswa understands new media pretty well.

The cardinal rule is to always engage and not leave things to gossip, speculation and half-truths. People may agree/disagree with him. But at least he has clarified his stance, taking people’s comments into consideration.

~~

Actually, someone asked a good question.. what is the difference between
saying something in a room and something in the media (online or mainstream)?

i guess when you say something in a room, you are yourself, expressing an opinion. There will be discussion but at a smaller scale. When you are speaking in the media, you are speaking to a wider audience and that influence people. By then, you are in the political realm of debating ideas, pushing agendas, etc and you will have multiple considerations about people, how the message is perceived etc.

Speaking in a room has its benefits. It removes all the political considerations and allows speaker to be more free in his speech. If he fumbles, only 50 hears it. Very little harm done. So he can be more daring with it.

And for him, he gets to testbed his ideas. Esp if it’s going to be controversial, most people will first discuss and test ideas with a smaller grp before going ‘live’. It’s equivalent to ‘prototyping’ in some industry.

Now engaging a larger public will mean he has more people to consider and he has to be mindful of how the message is being portrayed. Being politician means you have to be politically correct and take these considerations into account. (and that is why they have very full-proof, well thought out answers like his comment).

I think they can choose which level they wish to engage in, in a micro level or a macro level, depending on their preference, circumstance and purpose. If they wish to talk about their opinions to friends, families, a small group of people, they should be able to choose that.

And if it helps in strengthening their ideas before going ‘live’, isn’t that good?

it is not difficult to give a good speech in parliament. problem is he became uncertain about where he stand when his speech was challenged by MM. His response to MM “chiding” was that he gave a neutral response that people are allowed to have different views which seems like he is toeing along party line. If he is not prepared to defend his arguments, then he should not have made those arguments in the first place and result in all these unnecessary debate. And to say that this is part of a democratic process is an outright hypocritical excuse.

i think he is feeling hot under the collar and decided that he has to buckle under. and we were expecting greater things from him. anyway his speech is on cna, so whats the big fuss???????? oh well! we cannot expect much from anyone then. :(

the only living person that sit with lee kuan yew is JBJ jeyaratnam who they drink together in those days and JBJ knows well what this old fart up to. and JBJ knows all his tricks in his finger tips!!

but now that fears lion is gone.

now it it in your hand singaporeans!! stand up!! stand up for your fellow singaporeans especially the poor ones.think of them for a moment.
the rich please have heart for us singaporeans, don’t vote them base on your own interest.

GOD BLESS ALL SINGAPOREANS.

AMEN

“Actually, someone asked a good question.. what is the difference between
saying something in a room and something in the media (online or mainsteam)?

I think they can choose which level they wish to engage in, in a micro level or a macro level, depending on their preference, circumstance and purpose. If they wish to talk about their opinions to friends, families, a small group of people, they should be able to choose that.”

under normal situation, yes can choose. but the min u speak as a NMP then it is naive to think u still can choose. If some old man or gangster wants to construe wat u say as defamatory and then proceed to sue u, u think u still can choose? wan to sit on the fence butt crack will also hurt one, no?

By his Acceptance as NMP,
does it mean he Supports and Believes in the idea of NMP?

Why does an NMP not form a political party to be a politican?
or join an existing political party?

I am now confused : IS an NMP a Politician without belonging to Any political party?

People, we are really been too critical of him…

It is really sad to see us praising him when he spoke up and say things pleasing to our ears, when this happen….some of the same people here are ready to flame him….He is a human, and we are human, there are sure to be differences and friction and we can’t react like this over just 1 incident….I think we should at least give him benefit of the doubt…

and like I said, we are all humans…some of the people ask Mr Viswa Sadasivan to take a more critical stand etc, but if you are in his shoe, will you do the same thing that you advice or handle the situation with prudence, so that you live to fight another day?

Sun Tzu says that “He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.” You cannot expect someone to fight and suffer unnecessary casualty? Instead, he will have to strike at the right opportunity…

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ” What some of us her may be expecting the “war” to commence first and seek for victory, but in fact, we need to win the ground first…

and Just like patriot and others have said, I appreciate the face that he comes over here to leave a comment, and that is maybe unprecedented? at least he cares about what we feel…comparing it to the others…

Pls la Singaporean & fellow TOC reader, Viswa has done a good job so far as NMP. At least he has the courage to speak up against the mighty. Give this man some time he’ll definitely contribute, big or small, to the nation in some ways.

I think its perfectly fine for Viswa to request to remove the article. It is his right after all. And those of you who think he is just another lackey of PAP, pls fukc off. What he requests is just not to publish his view in a way he thinks it is not representative.

TOC, also no need to be so defendsive. We know you guys do a very good job. We all enjoy this site very much, already make it a “must-read” during the breakfast menu.

The minority Malays in Singapore have a “special position” under the republic’s constitution, according to former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

He said the constitution of Singapore enjoined the government to give Malays a “special position” rather than to ‘treat everybody as equal’.

Lee said this in Parliament on Wednesday when he rebutted as ‘false and flawed’ the arguments by Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan calling for equal treatment for all races in the city-state, the local media reported Thursday.

On Tuesday, Viswa tabled a motion for the House to reaffirm its commitment to principles in the National Pledge when debating national policies.

Lee, who is currently Minister Mentor, said the assumption of equal treatment for all races was “false and flawed” and “completely untrue”.

According to government statistic for 2008, Singapore’s population was about 4.8 million, with the Chinese forming the majority (76.7 per cent), followed by the Malays (14 per cent), Indians (7.9 per cent) and others (1.4 per cent).

He reminded everyone that Singapore’s starting point was the racial clash and tense period of the 1960s after the republic was thrown out of Malaysia and until it got its independence.

Lee said the Malays in Singapore then were worried about the Chinese who formed the majority, and wondered whether the Chinese here would treat them the way the Malay majority in Malaysia had treated the Chinese minority there.

The minister also pointed to Article 152 of the constitution, which says that it is the responsibility of the government to “constantly care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore”.

In particular, it states that the government must recognise the special position of the Malays, ‘the indigenous people of Singapore’, and safeguard their political, economic and educational interests.

Lee mentioned how the United States handled the race issue, where despite a 1776 declaration that “all men are created equal”, blacks did not get the right to vote until a century later, and racial segregation continued well into the 20th century.

For Singapore to reach a point where all races could be treated equally “is going to take decades, if not centuries’, Lee said.

For Singapore to reach a point where all races could be treated equally “is going to take decades, if not centuries’, Lee said.

huh?? you already take 50years and now decades and centuries??

till then how much will you squeeze out our blood before you call it off a day??

VOTE PAP OUT!

For Singapore to reach a point where all races could be treated equally “is going to take decades, if not centuries’, Lee said.

huh?? you already take 50years and now decades and centuries??

till then how much will you squeeze out our blood before you call it off a day??

VOTE PAP OUT!

VOTE THEM OUT!!

so as lee kuan yew mean we might have to suffer for decades if not centuries before we can have a better life?

by then will there be any more singaporeans left here?

what is the problem here?

then your salaries and ministers salaries why take just overnight to shoot up high of millions and billions to have a luxury life,
while we singaporeans have to take decades if not centuries to have just a better life not luxuries life?

lee kuan yew and his son and ministers can put an affect to make good contact with foreign country and archive good relation with them regardless of race or religion and you are saying you can’t change singapore to a better life for us and takes decades if not centuries?

or is it your relation with foreign countries benefits you, your familees and your PAP more then we singaporeans? that is why the forcus on we singaporeans not there anymore?that’s why you throw just peanuts each time we bark??

are we ungrateful DOGS?
VOTE them OUT!! or you singaporeans will be sorry forever.

Hi tookie, perhaps you are one of the faithful d— of the old fart, if you are, don’t bother to read beyond this point, if you’re not….

an interesting book review appeared in Temasek Review about S’pore judiciary being turned upside down by one man

“To show how far the government pursues its opponents, Seow had earlier won a seat on the board of the Singapore Turf Club, the republic’s horse-racing organization. The government abolished the turf club, wiped out the entire board, appointed a new one and took over the newly formed racing club. At the time of his arrest, Seow was involved in a relationship with a Singaporean businesswoman who was financing a business deal through Bank Nationale de Paris. The bank suddenly dropped her line of credit and forced her out of the business deal. “

“Once before, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, dreamt of the same system of justice for the Third Reich where “justice must not become the mistress of the state, but must be the servant of state policy.” But where Adolf Hitler and his enthusiastic minister of propaganda failed, Harry Lee Kuan Yew is succeeding. It is not an idle, but a terrifying prospect.”

(Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary, by Francis Seow)

http://temasekreview.com/?p=12627

Viswa is pretending to promote patriotism to singapore by making use of the national pledge. In actual fact, he has no courage to fight for the rights of singaporeans, only paying lip service. when confronted by netizen, all he can do is to chicken out. so much for taking a courageuos step in the maiden speech. just trying to pretend that singapore has open up but the acting has been exposed and backfired.

Viswa is this, Viswa is that. The cognitive dissonance of keyboard warriors. LOL :D

A fine piece of acting by the NMP to show that singapore has opened up. Best supporting actor award

Mr Viswa, I agree with you. Just do what you can and take good care. I want to hear more of you in parliament. Not through a book you write from abroad. Everything has a time, I can wait. Better for change to come late than never arrive.

For those of you who wrote so critically, where were you? I’d like to hear you speak in Speaker’s Corner. Show us how fearless and heroic you are. Many have spoken, some yell in parks but what have they accomplished? We need more than just a gung-ho personality to effect change.

I have surprise that many here had said that they praised Mr. V for his speech the parliment, while I remember clearly that most of the commenter seem to believe it is a stage up by the PAP. To show there is a opposition voice and NMP system works, many said.

To be fair, I do agree that TOC had Misrepresented Mr. V parliment speech in the way that lead people to think it is a stage-up. To say TOC present the previous articles as it is. Well, carefully Reading this articles you would see what TOC want most of us to see now.

There are so many clones here I have noticed, most writting come from a single character. I hope TOC has not become a self script, self cast and self direct website.

I feel Viswa needs to understand why so many here feel so angry with the PAP – and from there he may understand better why so many are now angry with him.

The PAP has let Singapore down. It has become a bully and everyone hates a bully, especially one who wields a hatchet, one who is arrogant or has become arrogant beyond the point of humility. Power has gone to its head.

In short, Singaporeans feel suffocated, imprisoned, unable to speak or voice these anger, frustration in any meaningful way. Making matters worse, the bully keeps displaying his arrogance, through the media he controls, he struts around cloaked in his cover of this untouchable, invincible arrogance.

And so, people start looking for a hero, someone to stand up to this bully. Those who tried to do this in the past were shot down mercilessly. And so the people had to wait again. Their only hope was the opposition parties. But the opposition parties have let them down.

Either they were considered too extreme, like the SDP, or too impotent, like the WP. But one thing is certain, all of the opposition parties too cannot bring down the bully.

And so along came Viswa Sadasivan. His first speech in Parliament and he moved a motion. And what a wonderful speech too! The people stood up and paid attention. Every word Viswa spoke was what the people felt.

AT last, someone who spoke it like it is, in a venue which leaves no one the possibility of claiming he does not know that Viswa was saying what he did.

AT last, a man who knew the people’s frustration.

Time to take down the bully-emperor and make him stand naked.

The fuel for the fire of anger among the people was provided when this same bully rubbished Viswa’s speech. The people’s ire was stoked further. But there it would have been left and he people would have waited, waited for the next elections. But it was not to be.

When Viswa showed what the people considered signs of capitulating to the bully, the people turned against him. A hero, betraying the people. Treason. Criminal. Unforgiveable. And so Viswa went from hero to villain.

Everyone has missed the point here.

And the point is this: Direct your anger at the right target. You bring down Viswa, what have you got left? WP? SDP?SPP?DPP?PKMS?RP?SDA? The same defanged, neutered suspects? Is that what you want?

In the end, the bully lives on, surrounded by his arrogant entourage of pimps and hoes, of eunuchs and prostrated yes-men.

But the real question is this:

Those who beat their chests, who tear their hair out, who curse and spit at Viswa, what is stopping you from speaking out for yourself? Why do you need someone else to voice your frustration? If you’re so upset with the bully, why don’t you go stand toe to toe with him and bring him down?

At the end of the day, the bully succeeds because of people who screams but hide. People who talk big but have small balls. People who push others to the firing line but hide in the hole.

People who are angry but with no courage.

And this is the real reason why the bully struts unchallenged – because of impotent angry men.

Viswa is just an easy target to vent the anger arising from your own impotence.

“The people are angry with politics now and the ruling coalition. We felt a great sense of people wanting change for their livelihoods and we fought this election for a change in government,” said Democratic Party leader Yukio Hatoyama, 62.

Japan Democrats win landslide in historic election, next is Singapore.

I don’t care what carrot or stick the PAP use, they are not getting my vote!

Go to hell PAP for ruining our lives!

Get this clear, people – there is no mistake on TOC’s part. Here is a man who has been appointed NMP, who thinks the world of himself. Why does he think that being an NMP, he can lord over others? Is he appointed to serve the people, serve himself or serve the PAP?

Why must any ‘deal’ be struck before anyone can discuss what he had openly said parliament?

In the words of Dick Lee; “He should just go lah”.

Sorry, Yamamoto, I don’t think he deserves another chance. NMP’s not for me, yet here is one who thinks himself bigger than he is. We now know for sure that he is in parliament to suck up to others. He should just disappear.

There are those who thinks Viswa is special because ‘he dares to speak his mind”. Come on, NMPs are supposed to speak their minds. It’s the first criteria isn’t it? The issue is this, he must speak his mind and stand by it. Viswa is one who speaks his mind and then tries to make himself look good too. What utter rubbish!

The worst NMP ever. Even Thio LA is anytime better.

#132…somehow i agree with u. I gave him a B+ for his maiden speech and a F for his conviction.

There was one who wanted 10,000 votes before even he will stand for the people
Next came the wishy-washy, namby pamby tamby
People, we will see quite a few who want to cut the cake and eat it too
Pretenders, half-hearted, ineffective, actors, lime-light seekers and spineless
Fortunately we have our true Lion Dr. Chee Soon Juan
Good thing about this affair is that people will wisen up
We will be clear who will be our future leaders and the chaff will be weeded out

>130)

I agree. He is an NMP, who articulated his vision of SIngapore that happens to contrary to the govt’s and solicited a response from MM.

It’s people here who are seeing him as a potential anti-pap hero.
U can see from the sentiments here- “to redeem.. quit as NMP and join the opposition.”
Why force him to be someone he is not?
I think people can have a stance on issues without having any political affiliations.

(130) Authenticity’s reason on why people need to ‘fantasize’ an opposition figure is worth thinking about a) people dun like to get hands dirty and wants opposition to take fire for them, while they enjoy the show and b) people are currently not satisfied with the way opposition is opposing.

Mr Viswa is very daring to speak his mind and stand out against fellow NMPs, he is a hero. However, when comes to ‘face’ problem, He is not so daring now … Ultimately, he wants good images lah!

So, he have the right to do whatever he think is right.

Dear Viswa,

You have done great harm to TOC as well as your own credibility by putting pressure on TOC to withdraw the article. Apparently, you don’t really know how “Open Media” or ” Freedom of Speech” works in a democracy.

To ask TOC to remove a published article upon your request is amount to asking a person to spit out his lunch after he has eaten it. That’s nauseating and disgusting. No professional media in an Open society would do that unless the said article involves defamation or breach criminal law of the land. This is pure highhanded Censorship that could only happen in authoritarian countries, like the communists. Whatever miscommunication you have with TOC, if there is any damage that the article will bring, it would have been done. If you really want to manage that damage (real, perceived or otherwise), the only proper way of doing it is to send TOC a clarification to be published along with that article.

Furthermore, no professional journalists would agree for their interviewees to VET their writing before they publish. This makes a mockery out of independent journalism. If you assume the “off the record” rule should apply, you should maintain your stand that no article should be published at all right from the start.

Frankly speaking, if you really care of “self preservation”, I would say that you have done exactly the opposite here. This is Internet. Whatever published is duplicated elsewhere in the Net in great speed.i.e. People could still read the withdrawn article. However, the withdrawn article may not have done as much damage to you as the revelations of your requests to censor TOC!

It is a good case study for all to learn about what Freedom of Speech and Independent Journalism.

Goh Meng Seng

>8 Kunming,

pse enlighten me where to read his speech, thks

136) Goh Meng Seng on August 31st, 2009 10.28 am ,

i think he kena pressure from his master and you know who yea.

Hello dear TOC,
All my comments over the past ten days are put under moderation
Out of 10 only 1 or 2 seems to get through
It was not like this before
Is your moderation process now so stringent that every comment has to pass a certain litmus test?
Even some poetical works that i sent (by the way i am a part time poet with over 300 compositions with me) don’t seem to get through
Pray tell, what’s going on?? I spent a lot of time on your site and i feel rejected like an outcast.

Goh Meng Seng

I disagree with you!

Mr. Viswa has exercised his freedom of request and TOC acknowledged the misunderstanding and acted appropriately. I respect TOC for that. If you had made duplicate copy on your site, you should remove it too!

130) authenticity

“And so, people start looking for a hero, someone to stand up to this bully. Those who tried to do this in the past were shot down mercilessly. And so the people had to wait again. Their only hope was the opposition parties. But the opposition parties have let them down.”

I think it’s Singaporeans that let themselves down by voting in PAP in the last election. How can opposition parties let you down when you didn’t even vote them. Do you expect 2 opposition MPs to perform miracle? Mind you, they have to overcome 82 PAP MPs. Anyone with a sound mind will know that you cannot win in a “1″ vs “40″ scenarios.

“Either they were considered too extreme, like the SDP, or too impotent, like the WP. But one thing is certain, all of the opposition parties too cannot bring down the bully.”

In my opinions, Singaporeans over the years have read too many PAP’s propangada and most still continue to believe the myth (partly due to apathy and partly fear). When SDP is very “vocal”, they become extremist; if WP plays along the rule, they becomes impotent – if Singaporeans still continue to accept this type of reasoning – then we seriously does not deserve any better.

Fortunately, things are changing… thanks to PAP – for deviating from the central line.

Nonetheless, I always have thought and believe that the root of the problem is actually on “Singaporeans” themselves. For the betterment of Singaporeans, we need to grown within ourselves to be more “mature” and “responsible” in the social-political arenas. If we “pride” ourselves as “intellectual”, we need perform critical thinking and “see” through the “smoke screen” and zoom at the problems itself.

To me, VS is just a shrewd person who utilised the age old ploy of leveraging on people’s empathy to gain political mileage.

By raising the inert concerns of the citizens during his speech, he struck a universal cord that alarmed the press and thus a national coverage with a good level of sensationalisation. He is surely a recognised figure now.

With the dust settled and a lashing from the old man, he now demands to have his published speech removed, possibly for fear of further backlash.

By doing so, he may have won the hearts of the regime. But judging from the reactions here, his action is definitely seen as repugnant. He has certainly lost his credibility and his support from the ppl down his term will surely be a waning one.

This episode clearly sums up the NMP concept – the appointed can gives the best speech in the whole of history, makes hell of noises, be seen as a hero on either side of the argument, etc.. but when the crunch comes, they are constitutionally & individually empty. All for a fat pay to add that is from public funds. Uniquely Singapore!

As such, I still question the NMP concept, the need to completely replace the old batch of NMPs and to increase the nos. of NMPs this time round. If parliament has excess budget, I think many can give alternate suggestions on how to use the $$ more meaningfully.

[...] Sector, I see only no action. Viswa sounds paranoid in his reply to theonlinecitizen (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/why-report-on-viswa-sadasivans-speech-was-removed-from-toc/), but his notion through the way he described about how his article was published in [...]

The most important and primary issue here is about sticking to an AGREEMENT and not about freedom of media, being courageous, democracy etc.

In this context, keeping to the terms of an AGREEMENT overrides the other issues.

Next…….

“…when the crunch comes, they are constitutionally & individually empty…”

It’s not only the hollowness of it; he can run away from his own words too. What’s more, he can even make accusations and claims that discussing his words did not come with his approval, real silly.

[...] Lee vs Sadasivan – TOC: The Singapore Story – A failure of pragmatism – Singapore Recalcitrant: No racial inequality in Utopian Singapore? – Hammersphere: Does the PAP MP agree with these? – TOC: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC [...]

at best he is an idealist…at worst he is just an opportunist! You are not preserving yourself..I put it to you that you are preserving your business! I am waiting for you to prove us wrong! No more rhetorical speeches pls… get on with the real issues Mr. Viswa!

Let us accept Viswa’s request not to continue with the article in TOC.
This is the democratic process. He is a careful person and am sure does not want to engage in issues that he may have to defend robustly later on.
Give the man some space to breathe and am sure he will do well in Parliament and for the people of Singapore at large.

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and you turned to the gahman. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. LOL :D

Viswa dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none.

“….It’s not only the hollowness of it; he can run away from his own words too….”

C’mon, once he start thinking he could lose the fat NMP allowance, one would even reconsider sell one’s mother!

“… Let us accept Viswa’s request not to continue with the article in TOC. This is the democratic process…”

That he is there as an NMP is already an undemocratic fact. What democratic process are you talking about?

As for him being careful and whether or not he will be a robust debater is another issue altogether. Look at what he has become after MM’s rebuke. Instead of taking the MM on he decided to take on TOC. It’s like someone who has been found out to have told a lie, turns around and give the friend standing next to him, a slap in the face.

If this is the role of an NMP, then forget it lah.

gemami,
relax…. Don’t you think that Viswa has a striking resemblance to CockleNathan ? Maybe that explain why he is so like that.

aiyah, let’s not be as rigid and unforgiving as our school streaming system lah- fail, sorry hor, em3, bye bye, liao, future fixed.

it’s a process. it’s a doodling. it’s an engagement.

so what if mr v buckled under pressure, not saying he did. i mean, so what? so what if he got no balls. that doesn’t mean that his balls are gone forever, right?

don’t be like pap lah, aiyoh. who knows, scarly you all got power you all will sue him until he bankrupt.

ironies of ironies! what have you done, kuan yew????

Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet him and you may call him Viswa. :)

Viswa,

why did you choose to voice up what you did after being an NMP?

I mean, the Hong Lim park is available everyday for you to talk to the people.

Why did you voice up after asked to voice up to give NMP speech and not before?

I mean, to voice up does not require one to be an NMP.

Why ask to retract your article after it was published?

If you can, pls reply to the many questions that people may be interested in as well.

An agreement should be upheld but the problem is, such agreement should never have existed in the context of Independent Media and Freedom of Information and Speech in the very first place!

For the normal ground rules, if one says it is Off the Record, then the journalists and reporters are not supposed to quote and report on it. But there is no such rule that says the interviewee or anyone outside the editorial team should “VET” the writing before it could be published! That makes the mockery of Independent Journalism in a real Democracy.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear Mr Viswa,

Hope you understand that you have effectively decided to join the ranks of Stormtroopers before you, fated to melt into oblivion. You had a choice, and I can see which path you took. Should you decide to open your eyes once again, I sincerely hope there will be something left for you to see.

Forget this individual Gentlemen, he who choose to live in fear shall die in obscurity.

I think LKY has performed a slight of hand here with regards to equality and the protection of “indigineous malays.” Equality doesnt entail a kindergarten definition of “identical treatment.” I mean thats like saying women who want gender equality want to be treated exactly like guys. I mean if i really want to bring that argument to its ridiculous conclusion the sexes might as well share toilets and we might as well have standing urinals for all. But they cant so we cant have gender “equality”? Rubbish thats not what equality means.

Equality in terms of a multiracial society , CAN and sometimes SHOULD entail some kind of affirmative action for minorities in the early stages of a nation, so that minorities who are disadvantaged by numbers can have an EQUAL footing. that it qualified equality.

dragging in the malay community and the race card seemed a little underhanded. Also i really didnt get LKY’s comment about Indians not knowing equality cos of the caste system. Surely being the man who claimed to have performed some kind of alchemy on this country and turned shit into gold, he must be aware that his country’s Indians……

a) Are not all Hindus
b) The Hindus here do not subscribe to the caste system, and have developed a very separate Historical identity from other parts of India and South India in which caste consciousness has remained in many forms due to many specific reasons.

Dear Mr.S.V.,

Greeting’s Good Day To You, Sir.
You’ve given many Local Borned Singaporeans “GREAT HOPE” with your maiden speech in Parliament, let me remind you that everyone who are really concern about our Singapore Future would be watching your next strategy like a hawk sharp vision.
Kindly proof to us that this time it is not just another “Showcase Or Hypocrisy” within PAP Directives.
Please help us to bring True Democracy Back to Singapore Land.
Every Loyal Singapore Citizens will be deeply grateful to you or to any Politician whom Care, Love and Sincere to make Good Changes for our Peoples.

Yours Truly,
Fong M.Y.

instead of crucifying the only person who had the balls to say something like that in parliament, i think we should be greatful. Not only that, im glad he has the good sense to make sure hes not liable for anything.

Id rather have someone in parliament for a longer period of time who can gain respect from moderate majorities and use that leverage to push for change, rather than a blazing radical who gets shot down and then blasted into obscurity.

For all those of you, who have railed against him and criticised him ask yourselves, what the hell have you done ? or how have you guys spoken out? Also how many of you actually provided practical assistance and support to people like CSJ and JBJ after they spoke out and were sued? i think you armchair critics should think twice before before blowing the whistle and expecting someone to run out of the trenches into machine gun fire. ( if you arnt willing to do so yourselves )

Oh please Mr Fong MY, better if you place your confidence in a democratically elected MP rather than one who is a push-down-the-throat kind. Know what? Even a PAP MP, those who stood for election, is better than an NMP – at least they have the guts to stand for election.

An no, Sheldon, it is not a process. It is a PAP tool to prevent the Opposition from gaining a foothold on Singapore politics.

So Mr Viswa, you’re nothing but nothing. Don’t even think anything about yourself. you represent no one. And that is fact.

I can see the conundrum Viswa was in, especially after being singled out by no less than MM Lee. What a maiden entry right? I am not sure however, that politicians (and I consider anyone who is parliament to be a politician!) really understand the nature of the beast – the internet. I forsee a time when a newsmaker has no control over whether his speech is covered or how it is covered. Aside from our traditional understanding of media (mainstream and online), there is now a growing group of vocal citizen reporters – who may attend a talk like the one given by Viswa – and write or blog about it. Once it is “out there”, it is fair game and anyone can pick it up, whether the newsmaker likes it or not, whether he agrees it was closed door or not. Sure you can make all the provisions to protect yourself from libel or from being misunderstood, but honestly, you are wading in completely different territory. Gone are the days when people could take time to explain exceptions, give background, provide context etc. Everyone (including purveyors of information), need to work in this new environment.

I hope no one flames me. I dont know abt the arrangement btw Viswa and TOC. So I have nothing to add there. All I know is, I feel sorry for this guy. He seems to be as much a victim now of govt heavy handedness and what can only be described as the collective tsunami of emotions in the internet. I came across this,

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/is-the-internet-turning-us-all-into-natural-born-disagreeable-people-a-study-in-the-age-known-as-the-brave-new-world/

My first thoughts after reading it was huh???? Now everything is clear. There was really only one way for Viswa to go. One way and no other way.

Best response so far:

165) gemami on August 31st, 2009 3.10 pm

Oh please Mr Fong MY, better if you place your confidence in a democratically elected MP rather than one who is a push-down-the-throat kind. Know what? Even a PAP MP, those who stood for election, is better than an NMP – at least they have the guts to stand for election.

An no, Sheldon, it is not a process. It is a PAP tool to prevent the Opposition from gaining a foothold on Singapore politics.

So Mr Viswa, you’re nothing but nothing. Don’t even think anything about yourself. you represent no one. And that is fact.

1 speech like that is not sufficient to proof his calibre.
I hope to see him being tested many more times so that his true potential can be seen by all.

real gold no scared fire grill.

Well said gemami…

He does not represent anyone..thus, i don’t understand why the fuss.
Let him speak and say what he likes and leave it at that, respect his wishes.
We can give courtesy to certain issues spoken and That’s it.

NMPs don’t represent Singaporeans. We did not elect them. They don’t have power to make policies or refute them in Parliment, perhaps only clarify them.

TOC readers should consider this and make their own judgement.

The one thing Viswa has made clear is that NMPs do not and cannot represent THE PEOPLE.

Intentional or not, I don’t know and I don’t care. But it is evident.
It is time for people to understand this and move on to vote wisely in the next election.

171) prettyplace

“It is time for people to understand this and move on to vote wisely in the next election.”

Precisely.

vote wisely.

nothing can change if singaporeans keep accepting.

50years is enough. we need a total change. not even a single PAP in the next election win and lky and familess please step down!

we have enough regardless of what good words you got to say and regarless of what goodies you giving next. we have enough!

thanks for all the past and step down move own with your life and your pappies and let us decided you will control singapore.
we know the best as because of us your wallets are way too full with millions and billions! guess that is enough for you lky and pap to retire and go on. thanks and bye bye……….

I think the nay and aye posters had both articulated their views quite expressively and some were more than a knee jerk reaction indeed. However, I read this clarification article with a different perspective. Exacting to what had been stated in response to Mr. Sadasivan’s article removal request from Andrew’s published clarification herein, I certainly hope TOC clarify and made public what actually transpired between Mr. Sadasivan’s assistant with TOC’s reporter that lead/resulted to this miscommunication?
Quote: “it was thought that Mr Viswa’s assistant, who had communicated her concerns about the content of the report with our reporter, had agreed for it to be published after the discussion. We had thought the assistant was given authority by Mr Viswa to make the decision. As it turned out, this was not so.”
I am reading this as an assumption made by TOC without further confirmation from its rightful owner (VS) whether it is okay to make public the speech made in LKY School of Public Policy.
Some of you had chastised the removal request and deemed it undemocratic. At the same time also pointed out that the article can be read/access in other medium. I think you have seriously misunderstood the essence of democracy. I think a distinction should be made on what is construed as Freedom of Speech in a democratic country in general. Without the full consent of the writer or speaker to publicize a speech or an article, the publishing entity had indeed breached an agreement (be it verbal or written). It is the publishing entity’s journalist/reporter responsibilities to ensure the source report had been given an undisputable confirmation before it gets published (be it old media or new media). That is called responsible publishing/journalism. As to whether it is an uncensored/censored report/article is a completely different story.
By the way, TOC you have breached your 500 word limit moderation rule by allowing VS full comment to be posted in a single go. So, can I accuse TOC of breaching your rules and being selectively bias over this word-limit rule set? Honestly, I do not as you are the owner of this site and you have every right to do so. Ditto to VS.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)

I like to express my gratitude to Mr. Sadasivan for engaging TOC netizens with his articulated candid posting. This requires courage. I especially agree with this statement of his “it would be great if we can agree, but if we cant, that’s alright too, as long as we continue to listen to each other and agree to disagree. This is the democratic process.”
We are all humans of many and different perspectives, moral values and what not on any issues (in particular controversial issues that matters most to an individual). What is important when we stay engage in any open/closed discourse in any medium is that a maturing mindset is one that understood the essence of open mind communication and the art of agreeing to disagree on all arguments made or put forth. That indeed is true democracy at work.
I am in agreement with comments made by my two old friends here Patriot and Gemami (both had contrasting views and both are right indeed). However, to Gemami my dear friend, since VS does not represent Singaporeans at large as you had explicitly implied, I failed to understand the fuss and the call for his resignation as NMP. Please do not allow your emotion to rule over you. You are smarter than that.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)

Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company: http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml

Look out for the clients list. It speaks for itself.

–> 176 – Papz

99% of clients PAP-linked. LOL

Yes.. “self preservation”. Later funding kena cut,, cannot support house/car/family. Better shut up and sit down. Long live PAP.

Oh dear i missed it. I adore Viswa.
He is so brave, down to earth and he is so man.

@Observer (SG-HK)

“Some of you had chastised the removal request and deemed it undemocratic”

To me, the crux of the matter is that Viswa choose to self censor the moment his speech was publicized and could possibly invite trouble for him. In his own words he admitted to exercising “Self Preservation”.

It seems troubling that a would-be champion of democratic values would so bravely beat a swift retreat at the first sign of danger rearing its ugly head.

“Moderation : Lengthy comments which exceed a reasonable length. Comments should not exceed 500 words. Anything more will be subject to approval.”

The last seven words above. Either they were just snuck in, or someone failed to read some very simply English before insinuating the practice of double standards.

very angry,

you will never convince anyone but a handful of people with that sort of argument and reasoning. nobody in their right mind will support such an extreme call to vote the entire PAP out of office because like it or not, they have been responsible for a tremendous amount in this country. You may hate them because they have only provided for a minimum level of democracy, made bad investments and covered up their mistakes, but do remember that there are a whole lot of things that they have also gotten right. You let your judgement be clouded by emotions. The current opposition have not given any substantive alternatives to the present system. It is not merely propaganda that keeps the PAP in power today.

Aiya, I say once again. Vote the real Oppostion MP in the Parliment. Forget about what NMP scheme. All is Wayang show for us to see what PAP gov is doing.

Bear in mind that we must all have to guts to change as Japan has change it. So do is S’pore turn. Whether we made it or not is all depend on us to spread the news around.

Three Cheers to new S’pore!!!!!

Keyboard warriors unrelenting. LOL :D

I think many past opposition political figures have been “sacrificed” because someone was also “self-preserving” himself. So it is justified to censor media, pass laws that curb the right of citizens, non-accountabilites, non-transparency, suing opposition till bankrupcy ……………………………… all because of “SELF-PRESERVATION”

Sometimes we may need to change from complaining that the glass is half empty to appreciating that the glass is half filled.

Mr Goh Meng Seng’s post 137 is excellent! sums up the flawed logic in the first place – which is, why shld there be an agreement for V’s approval in the first place??

I find it so Funny and Ridiculous and Unbelievable that
such a small country that singapore is with so small population compared to other countries, with so much technology and tools available to citizens, the Youths still cannot be reached and taught to Read not just MSM medium but also Alternative medium. They can then make up their minds and come to a conclusion about the Realities.

Big countries have successfully engaged their Youths using the same technologies.

Is singapore a hopeless case? Why are Youths OBLIVIOUS to the real problems?

Another controversy about NMP Viswa hot on the heels of his “highfalutin’” maiden speech in Parliament. Appears to me that he has either too big a mouth or too small a heart, or both. If he is so scared of the consequences of making his speeches then he shouldn’t make them in the first instance. Just bend with the wind and flow with the tide….

Frankly, I do not see anything at all wrong with his two speeches even though they may have ruffled a few feathers on some sensitive birds. He was simply stating some well known facts about Sinkapoor which were crying out to be said. What’s on earth is wrong with that?

NMP thought he make a name for himself by focusing on the idealist concept, and believe it will be important as well as raising the bar in NMP standard as proposed by LHL and LKY. He did just that by pressing the “wrong button” and awaken the beast……….

I don think he is genuine in his speech if not he wont be afraid to retract what he had said. I come to think of it as a moment of folly by himself and must be cursing the very moment that why he never proof check his speech first or engaged the pappies stoggies to do the propaganda touched up. Politicising an ideology is what makes politics tick so sad that after he regretted what he said he will definitely become a hermit in parliament. I bet my pet “sparky” ’s dog food on it.

Really 2 step forward 5 steps back!

“177) Greg on August 31st, 2009 6.01 pm
–> 176 – Papz
99% of clients PAP-linked. LOL”

Ya.. interesting isn’t it? What if this whole episode was a scam to remind parliament and Singapore who is in charge?

I never once thought we had a democratic garmen but one of a despotism with one symbolic EMPEROR LEE whose power comes directly from the one sitting behind the iron curtain.

We need Viswa for our Vendetta!

I simply cannot understand why a man who wants to be a Nominated Member of Parliament would fear so greatly that whatever he says become politicized.

Isn’t the fact that by becoming an NMP itself is already self-politicizing? If he is willing to step out voluntarily to politicize himself in Parliament (therefore in public too), why can’t others politicize on what he says, whether in Parliament, behind closed doors, or in his secret hide-out (if any)?

It is sad that I have come to realise that many, if not all, of our so-called politicians are so afraid of getting into trouble because of what they say.

It is very clear from this example alone, that Singaporeans have a very long way to mature politically. Though some leaders simply love to boast that we are a first world nation, there are, in actuality, so many areas that we are lacking far behind some third world countries, e.g.

1. Political awareness,
2. Political acumen and
3. Political rights of individuals and society as a whole.

I think over the last 50 years, the PAP has done our nation a very great dis-service for not cultivating, promoting and nurturing the above three crucial qualities upon the citizens. Without such qualities in its citizens, the nation will not survive in the long run. When there appears a relentless and prolonged external threat, Singapore will simply fall like a durian.

So, whoever wants to become a politician, please have the guts to stand up and be counted on whatever you dared to say, whether in public, parliament or behind closed doors. Otherwise, people will perceive whatever you may say later on as mere “playing politics” or “wayang”. You want the cake and eat it? You can’t. You have lost your credibility. In future, I for one will think that you simply have no balls!.

@gemami

wrote

“An no, Sheldon, it is not a process. It is a PAP tool to prevent the Opposition from gaining a foothold on Singapore politics.”

oh, an engagement.

frankly, i am not concerned with any wayang, i am more fascinated by people’s response to it. i am interested in the singapuran mindscape, whether in the whites or non.

i am going to vote for the opposition anyway. i mean, who cares if it’s a pap tool. it’s still a process involving the tool’s mind, the tamogochi master’s , and the audience cum participants’.

i just have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of people who cry foul , besides expressing their personal displeasure, are also warning people not to fall into that trap, and i am just not sure how much thought they put into their presentation of warning and have they defined their target audience, or they just do it like how the pap would do it, i.e. premising that people other than them, ‘elites’, are dumb. i mean, the dumb ones will vote for the pap no matter what, so…

yeah it’s still a process. minds are fluid, they can change, unless one is like tribal lee who believes in genetic determinism.

put it this way, even if mr v’s a tool, he has a mind that still may sway depending on the singapuran mindscape engaging him. is the mindscape emphasizing ‘fear’ leading him to further ’self preservation’ recourse, or is it one encouraging openness and unforgivingness. that’s the bottom up approach that i am more interested in. who knows, once the mindscape becomes open enough, members within the pap may start coming out of their closets- i mean, everyone has a mind.

I think several members may have conflated some issues in their response. For what it’s worth, here are my views.

To me, the key issues are, first, to what extent is Mr. Sadavisan at fault for requesting TOC post to be removed? Next, based on his speech and subsequent actions, can we accuse Mr. Sadavisan as being a false representative of the people?
Let me tackle the first issue. We have to bear in mind the rules of the journalistic game. Yes, besides the editors, no self-respecting journalist will allow an article to be vetted by interviewees. But, what if the reporter has already agreed to that request of vetting? Then it becomes a matter of integrity. Based on Mr. Sadasivan’s and TOC’s account of the exchange, it seems that the TOC reporter did agree to that arrangement, albeit a verbal one. An agreement has to be honored.

Next, the Chatham House rules were in force for the event. The rules are practiced around the world, especially in international affairs. This allows all parties in the forum to present their most honest opinions without fear of attribution (and retribution).

Depending on the newspaper policies and agreement with the organizers, the journalist may report the event, but he or she cannot attribute quotes to individuals. In this instance, given the thrust and content of TOC’s article, Chatham House rules were breached. Hence the issue is one that concerns appropriate ethical, professional conduct. Even if the subject matter is something less controversial or Mr. Sadasivan has not made the request, TOC is still obliged to take it off the website.

To that, I feel that both TOC and Mr. Sadavisan resolved the issue in a civilized and professional manner. Definitely we cannot expect the residual emotions from this episode to be positive, but I believe it says a lot about the maturity and civility both parties displayed in this disagreement.

Claiming that his request for removal is based on cowardice is a matter of interpretation. I’m fine with people presenting their opinions, of course, but just not under the banner of facts. But to just present opinions without careful reading of the issues and reliable evidence only adds fuel to the high emotions, yet not helping everyone to understand the issues.

As for whether Mr. Sadasivan misrepresented himself as a representative of the people, this is an interesting issue. It is a situation created by the incumbent – A non-elected representative speaking in Parliament for his or her assumed constituencies. Who are Mr. Sadasivan’s assumed constituencies then? He made it very clear that they are Singaporeans.

One may be cynical and suspicious of his intent if he’s really that laudable. It’s a fair and pertinent question. The due process will be to look for evidence (perhaps his clientele) to suggest that he harbors less-than-altruistic ambitions.

We are conflating the issue of authentic intention with official/legal political representation. If he’s a self-serving politician, Mr Sadasivan should be taken to task even if he is an elected MP. But we should not disparage him just because he’s a NMP. He’s working within the formal political system, no matter how unfair it is, to contribute based on his expressed intent. The hostility towards non-democratic, arbitrary political representation should be directed at the incumbent party, at the complicit non-PAP MPs and the bureaucrats, but not at Mr. Sadasivan.

I’m sure many will not agree with me. That’s ok. But we should present our case based on logical and clear arguments even if the basis of our contention is an emotional one. Correct my flawed logic. Reveal my erroneous sources. Present another side of the story that I have missed. That way, we can engage one another in a civilized, intelligent and constructive manner, even though the debate can be a hugely uncomfortable one.

If we can do that, it shows great promise that we can engage in heated, even polemical debates and yet coming out of it, deeply aware that all of us are ultimately Singaporeans, regardless of our political, moral or religious positions. We may disagree on how to make Singapore better, but we share the same vision of making it a more equitable, livable and compassionate nation. We are here to build a home, not erect a house or to manage a hotel.

At the end of the day, I hope that regardless of where we stand, we can all end the session with kopi or beer at the kopitiam, because after all we are Singaporeans, here to make it better.

Sincerely,
Eric

Another oxy-moronic example of our ministers in a dressed-up, mock parliament:

1. Fact that he is MP, regardless of nominated or elected, means he is representative in a government. The fact that he delivered the speeches in the parliament AND in the LKY School of Public Policy are meant to be politicized, unless he SHUTS HIS MONTH on both occasions.

2. Not knowing who he is, I am assuming being a Nominated MP means he must be on the good side of someone well-connected in this totalitarian government. To kick-up such a stir would have reflected badly on everyone in the Establishment. I am not surprised that he should request the site to remove his speech. Another establishment kid with no balls to go against the draft and his higher-ups. Sad!

Sorry… I meant “SHUTS HIS MOUTH”.

Hi Sheldon on September 1st, 2009 4.41 am – I get your point, thanks.

Dear Observer (SG-HK),

Your comments put the issue into perspective – as always.

However, I feel there is an altogether different issue arising from the episode – the behaviour of VS after MM Lee’s rebuke. One would have expected a response, no less, but unfortunately till this day there is nothing heard from him. Instead what we got from him was for TOC to remove the article it had published.

Like the cliché goes; It does not take a rocket scientist to read into that.

By this action alone, it opens up a whole host of questions on the NMPs and the NMP scheme. I shall ask two. What are they really there for if they cannot even engage on issues brought up by them in the first place? Why bring up the hope of the people only to sent it crashing down to earth again?

Don’t get me wrong. I think he had made a very good speech and I am glad he did, for him and for Singaporeans. For a moment I was watching to see if this NMP could perhaps sway my opinion of the NMP scheme. Alas, it not only confirmed what I had believed all along – that it is a toothless, useless and worthless scheme – that serves to put the opposition at a disadvantage – by the response from VS. He has to translate his speech into action, if not, he will just be another empty vessel.

Like I have said so earlier, instead of taking the MM on, he decided to slap all of us here in TOC who had supported him. My emotion arises from the pov that we are placing too much emphasis and hope on the NMP scheme when we should be doing all we can to help put more opposition into parliament. It is opposition MPs that we need, not NMPs who can only make noises and nothing else.

I borrow the words of AC on August 31st, 2009 7.33 pm:

“It seems troubling that a would-be champion of democratic values would so bravely beat a swift retreat at the first sign of danger rearing its ugly head”

Dear Gemami,

Frankly, I think its too early to pass judgment based on two public events. How many of us heard of him before he made his madien speech at the parliament? How many of us personally knew him before his “chatnum Rule” speech at LKY school of public policy? Put yourself in VS shoe, what will you do and how will you rebut MM in such a short time if given a chance? Do we all know what is in VS thought and what are his concerns? He is a human afterall and it is indeed his maiden voyage to the political arena. Personally, I think VS has taken non-confronting approach in his rebuttal but that does not necessary mean he totally conceded to MM’s POV.

I believe you understand the true meaning of “大智若愚”. “有勇无谋” will not survive long in political environment (be it public office or in a company). .

At best most of us here are armchair critics (whether we like it or not) albeit some have taken it to HLP to address their concerns. I think each and every poster here is very aware that whatever and whichever side we are in, what matters most at the end of the day is the end result come voting time (when given the chance to do so).

Dear AC

As to your respond on my comment regarding the 500 word limit rule set. I cordially suggest you read between lines. Don’t get me wrong here, I meant to highlight this point intentionally because it is “selectively democracy ~ as in Freedom of Expression” at work. Anyway, we are all humans of different perspectives and values. There’s no right or wrong, it is merely an individual point of view.

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

Someone managed to save a copy of the deleted article. Don’t know if posting links are allowed here. Anyway you can find a link to the website at Singapore Daily Monday post.

Keep up the good work guys!

Many apology for the typo..should read “Chathum House” rule..instead of “Chatnum Rules”..blame it on the antique keyboard.

Eric on 1 Sep 5.10am expressed it very well and I quote him partially:

“… the Chatham House rules were in force for the event. The rules are practiced around the world, especially in international affairs. This allows all parties in the forum to present their most honest opinions without fear of attribution (and retribution). Depending on the newspaper policies and agreement with the organizers, the journalist may report the event, but he or she cannot attribute quotes to individuals. In this instance, given the thrust and content of TOC’s article, Chatham House rules were breached. Hence the issue is one that concerns appropriate ethical, professional conduct. Even if the subject matter is something less controversial or Mr. Sadasivan has not made the request, TOC is still obliged to take it off the website.”

I suppose the Chatham House rules give the exception where a media may be allowed to quote a speaker if the speaker gives permission for a specific part of his speech or the whole of his speech or an edited version of his speech to be reported by a particular media.

As the Online Citizen explains, “It is not a practice nor a policy of The Online Citizen to do this [to let the speaker “personally clear and sign-off on the final version” of Online Citizen's report] – unless under very special circumstances.”

In the case, the Online Citizen reporter apparently felt that it is more worthwhile to release the speech of Viswa than to follow the usual practice of not letting the speaker personally sign off and approve an edited version of the speech before releasing it to the public. So this should be consider as falling under one of those “special circumstances”. So the reporter apparently agreed to the terms set by Viswa. (the reporter could have chosen the other path of not reporting the speech of Viswa if he/she insists on the usual practice of not letting the speaker “sign off and approve” his report before releasing to the public).

So if the terms of the speaker were not adhered to, then the Chatham House rules remain applicable, which means the speech of Viswa should not be released to the public.

Of course due to the reported miscommunications and misunderstandings, the speech seemed to have been wrongly released, and the mistake was rectified with the removal of the speech.

Should Viswa be faulted for issuing those terms and conditions for the release of his speech by Online Citizen?

I think Viswa has no obligation to break away from the Chatham House Rules. The act of him allowing the Online Citizen and not other media to release his speech (though under certain conditions) is a gracious act, which should be appreciated. It is a gracious act because there is no obligation for Viswa to break the Chatham House Rules.

Viswa has the RIGHT to remain under the working of the Chatham House Rules, which is, that his speech (whether part or whole) is not to be released by the media.

We need to respect the RIGHT of Viswa to the Chatham House Rules.

We need also to respect and follow The Chatham House Rules.

And if the Chatham House Rules are to be set aside under a new set of terms and conditions, then the Chatham House Rules can be ignored ONLY IF those new set of terms and conditions are adhered to.

When those new set of conditions are not met, then the Chatham House Rules remain, which means the media is not to publish the speech of any speaker or quote any speaker .

Dear Observer(SG-HK);

it’s always good to have your level-headed views.

Rereading throught the Article and the Comments again, i am in full concurrence with Eric #195 who had given us a very comprehensive analysis of the Events(speeches made by VS) and the relationships of his(VS) appointment as NMP with the Regime and the People. Eric has also given us many of his well thought opinions.

Up to this point, I am comforted by the fact that VS had raised Issues of significant relevance to the People and the Country. Be it that he is suspected for his political(party) leaning, i will credit him for having done something that no other parliamentarians, be they Elected Opposition Members, Riding on Coattail and or Backdoor Entry PAP Members, NMPs or the Others had ever raised.

With his Response in this Thread with declaration of his neutrality between the Ruler and the Citizenry, i feel he(VS) has sincerity, again he may still be suspected of wayang(acting), however, i will give him the benefit of doubt and the time for him to prove his integrity. Dare i say, i will not regret should development(s) moves in the opposite of my belief(in VS) and wishes.

In an issue where and when no concrete result has been established, i think it is only fair to discuss subject matters in calm and less emotional spirit and it is best that we could agree to disagree in our friendly exchanges here and elsewhere of course.

patriot

Dear Patriot,

Been a while since I last visited TOC. Thought it was timely to catch up. Like you, I am in total agreement with Eric’s comment. He made it easier for many to understand the underlying issues (if we call it one to begin with).I too will give VS a benefit of a doubt and it will be great to see that he lives up to his maiden speech. Time will attest to this.

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company: http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml

Check out the clients list :
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports
Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr Heng Chee How, Minister of State, Prime Minister’s Office
Mr Lim Siong Guan, Chairman, Economic Development Board
Mr Leo Yip Seng Cheong, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Manpower
Mr Tan Boon Huat, Chief Executive Director, People’s Association
Mr David Conner, Chief Executive Officer, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation
Dr Olaf Duebel, Managing Director, Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd
Mr Michael Denoma, Group Executive Director & Chairman of Consumer Banking, Standard Chartered Bank
Ms Lien Siaou Sze, former Senior Vice President, Hewlett-Packard Services, Asia Pacific
Major-General Lim Kim Choon, formerly Chief of Air Force, Republic of Singapore Air Force
Brigadier General (NS) Tay Lim Heng, Chief Executive, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore

No prize for guessing why he asked his speech to be removed.

176) Papz
“Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company:

http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml

Look out for the clients list. It speaks for itself. ”

So he IS with the PAP all the time..I was ’shocked’ to observe the list of his clients….most of them are pappies! He is ‘funded’ by them?

So, what can we expect from this ‘Gentleman’?

I don’t believe this !
We were ‘fooled’ into thinking that he spoke our language!

Thanks to TOC, without the above issue, otherwise, this wouldn’t have come to light.
Many singporeans are thinking that he is ‘God-send’ , now we know that he is a PAP ( faithful) sent to divert us totally from more serious issues.

So, most of you are right, this is a’ Wayang’ and he is the lead actor (out from the horse’s mouth). These NMP’s have lost my trust completely, from now on, no matter what they say, we will know that it is just another ‘ drama’ scripted & being staged by the the ruling party.
Wow, lky is a genius!

A Politician need to show that he is.
Talk can sound nice.
Words can read nice.
Its ACTION that will prove a Politician how good is he by walking the talk.
I am waiting to see him in Action at hong lim .

But will he ever do so, that is the question.

/// 158) OriginalResonance on August 31st, 2009 1.19 pm
Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet him and you may call him Viswa. :) ///

Ah, alliterations aplenty – and artistically articulated also. Apt, accurate, authentic and absolutely awesome…

Some people give half of their wealth away to the poor, some others give 90% of their wealth away. Shall we fault the person who gave half his wealth to the poor for not giving 90% of his wealth to the poor?

——————————————-

If Viswa is so concerned about his business, he could have made a PAP-friendly speech instead of what he has spoken in the LKY Sch of Public Policy. Surely even without any media reporting, the PAP would know what was spoken in that closed-door event, and surely Viswa could have thought about the possibility of a risk of loosing some of his clients (unless it is one big conspiracy or Wayang).

If Viswa thought that he has made a mistake in his Parliamentary speech for cuasing discomfort to some members of PAP, he would have made a PAP-friendly speech in the LKY Sch of Public Policy instead of what was spoken there.

And Viswa would not explicitly state in this public media that he still stand by what he has spoken in both the Parliament and at the LKY Sch of Public Policy.

Surely he would know that it is likely the govt and his clients would know what he said here and what he said at the LKY Sch of Public Policy. But he continue to stand by what he said.

There is no need for us to expect him to be martyred. We should respect him for doing what he can within his limitations and for taking various risk 9including some degree of business risk).

Different persons have different limits in the way they balance between promoting personal/family welfare and promoting social/political well-being.

(e.g. some people gives half of their wealth away to the poor, some gives 90% of their wealth away. Shall we fault the person who gave half his wealth to the poor for not giving 90% of his wealth to the poor?)

——————–

Most of us are either not able or not willing to do what he has been doing. So let us not be so quick to cast our stones onto Viswa.

——————–

Unless there are compelling evidence, we better not jump into conclusion and blacken his character or motive. Otherwise we may wrongly “kill” a man if that man has good motive to promote social-political well-being.

Let us observe him over a period of time. Give him time.

————-

Again, we need to respect the RIGHT of Viswa to operate under the Chatham House Rules.

He can choose to be gracious by forfeiting that RIGHT, but there is NO OBLIGATION for him to forgo his RIGHT.

We should not criticise him for not forgoing his RIGHT if we recognise that he has such a RIGHT.

Think about it: if someone can be faulted for not giving out his right, then a right is not really a right – if a person has a right, then that right is something which a person cannot be faulted for exercising that right.

I admire Viswa for going as far as he did. His speech shocked PAP because it has substance. Guess you can’t expect immediate results on these things but I am sure some of members in the parliament, especially the good ones, would ask themselves if they are going the right direction.

For those who criticize Viswa for not doing enough, why don’t yourselves do something?

politician is part of culture of every country.
politician is part of life concerning everyone issue from top to down towards future.
politician is about justice, truth, fairness and openness.

to top of all above, politician is NOT WHAT PAP IS RUNNING AT THE MOMENT.

TO set the record straight: Viswa spoke on two occasions — once in Parliament when he made his maiden address and the second time, at the LKY School of Public Policy.
For his views in Parliament on the Pledge, which, I feel, many of us support, he was taken to task by LKY. Was the old man justified? That’s up to the people to decide. He has been right many times, but surely, he cannot be right all of the time.
At the LKY School, Viswa spoke, among other things, about the timidness of the MSM in not being more vigorous in their reporting. He could be reasoning out that a more independent MSM would provide for better development of democracy.
That could be a matter of opinion — but who knows, hitting out at the powerful MSM could be construed as libel, defamation and what have you.
For sure, Viswa appears to have kicked opened a nest of hornets. Let’s see how he continues — many will be waiting to see how he performs and what he says the next time round. Both the public and the PAP.

@Eric

The issue to me, and maybe others here, is not so much about the agreements Viswa had with LKY School or this website or whether the TOC was right or wrong; the issue to me, was that Viswa choose to embargo and withdraw the article instead of clarifying or correcting the inaccuracy or misrepresentation which he spoke vaguely of.

A politician lives and dies by his credibility – part of this credibility is the conviction to stand by one’s words, and the ability to stand up to public scrutiny.

Can TOC please delete my earlier post, – - html gone wrong – - Thanks.

I have not heard of such a thing as the ‘Chatham House Rules’ and I am thankful that some have taken the initiative to share it here. I will therefore reassess my position and perhaps give some leeway to VS for the position he is in.

Thanks to all, especially Observer (SG-HK) & Eric for providing a more rational view to the issue.

My hope is for VS to follow through on his brave words. As things stand, I am still skeptical over what an NMP can do. The limitations are clear for all to see and it is very difficult, even for those who support him, to do anything about it. They cannot vote for him nor can he say he represents their views.

When push comes to shove, the government will say it has the mandate to decide that its view is the view of the people, while comments like those of VS are nothing but his own. This is what LKY has done to VS’s comments. Therefore all this will come to naught, just like I have always said it is and will be.

I will heed the numerous calls to give VS time but my hope is for the real opposition to learn a thing or two from this episode, one of which is to identify issues concerning the people and to bring them out into the open for the government to address them. Most of all they must stand by their conviction to extract full accountability from the rulers.

@Observer (SG-HK)

What we see of Viswa are the words he speaks and the manner which he carries himself. Which so far constitutes of one big bang and a whimper after. It might be too early to write him off, but I think that his choice of actions were quite unfortunate.

As for the matter of the 500 words limit – your exact words were “By the way, TOC you have breached your 500 word limit moderation rule by allowing VS full comment to be posted in a single go.”

What you wrote was wrong given the posting guidelines on the website states clearly that postings above 500 words were subject to approval, as opposed to being not allowed at all. The point of my earlier comment was to highlight this factual error.

Thanks to “Observer (SG-HK),” “patriot,” “Chatham House Rules forbid the release of the speech,” gemami and several others for your gracious remarks, I deeply appreciate it.

The issue of whether Mr. Viswa Sadasivan is a coward, a government mouthpiece or both keeps cropping up in this forum.

Some feel that he is a sell-out because (1) he enters the political arena as a NMP, and (2) that his clientele is heavily government-based. Some even feel that as authentic reflection of his political fervor, he should use Hong Lim Park as the rightful platform.

I have talked about (1). That criticism should be directed at the incumbent party and all those who are complicit in this, including the non-PAP MPs. (I don’t fancy the term Opposition at all – if we pay closer attention, it’s a label that the media and the incumbent party tag other parties to reduce their legitimacy. These parties do not oppose Singaporeans at all; they offer an alternative voice, albeit a rather subdued one.)

Instead, let’s work this through together, starting with the Hong Lim Park option. In terms of reach and efficiency, which option will serve Mr. Sadavisan’s purpose best to reach more Singaporeans? In terms of legitimacy, does speaking up as an NMP or speaking up as a member of the public in Hong Lim Park lends more credibility? Furthermore, which is more daunting? Speaking up in Hong Lim Park, or to move a motion in the Parliament where his every word and action are duly archived and scrutinized by us and by the authorities? (In fact, how many NMPs have moved a motion? I believe he’s either the first or one of the few to do so.) Which needs more effort and more courage?

Next, let’s look at his clientele base. I completely agree that his clientele base may be more worrisome than impressive. However, I also cannot just conveniently ignore the large private corporations like BMW, HP, KPMG and OCBC that his company serviced as well. (Seriously, one hardly counts OCBC as pro-establishment, especially for folks in the know.)

Furthermore, it is also in the nature of the business of strategic communications to be sought after by large organizations. What organizations would seek professional advice at that level? How many organizations of that size and stature, private and public, exist in Singapore? Let’s think a little deeper about it.

Furthermore, from another point of view, who would you want to be speaking for Singaporeans in the Parliament? One who has no clue about the inner workings of the government, especially senior leadership’s thinking on communication and public engagement, or do you want someone who has swum in the deep ends with the sharks? From a purely strategic perspective, the answer is obvious.

Next, I don’t want a martyr. I want someone who is alive, understands that political engagement is a marathon and not a sprint, and knows to choose and fight worthy battles and not engage every skirmish. I want someone who knows the system, has worked in the system and willing to change the system from within. We are all too familiar with what happened when change not only comes abruptly and unthinkingly, but also externally. Look at how USSR crumbled in 1989. Look at how Indonesia crumbled during the last financial crisis.

I’m acutely aware that to a large extent it’s my personal preference for this brand of change, but I have also stated my reasons why I think it is too harsh, too foolhardy to expect Mr Sadasivan, a veteran observer of Singapore’s political history, to simply ape strategies of other political parties or political activists.

And yes, I am very concerned about his close government contacts and his involvement in several government forums too (e.g., he was also in the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs as a Resource Panel member). However, to simply brand him as a government mouthpiece just because of that connection is, may I dare say, somewhat one-dimensional.

Some people move the world by being in the forefront, lending the charge, providing a voice and personality to the movement. Others work quietly behind the scene to effect change. Both are admirable, but right now, by legitimizing one way over the other, we are privileging one over the other. Can we surely say at this point in time which method, and only one method, works best for Singapore?

We should watch Mr. Sadasivan carefully, but at the same time, mindful that he is stepping out, putting his reputation on the line and subjecting his personal life to scrutiny. (Just look at how we jump at his professional CV). The scrutiny is necessary and no one, including our political leaders, should be placed on a pedestal. I am all for that level of scrutiny.

Before we burn Mr. Sadasivan at the stake for one singular move, let’s take a step back, suspend our criticisms for the time being and monitor if he will remain authentic to his cause.

Sincerely,
Eric

[i] oleoleole on September 1st, 2009 11.08 am

Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company: http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml

Check out the clients list :
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports
Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr Heng Chee How, Minister of State, Prime Minister’s Office
Mr Lim Siong Guan, Chairman, Economic Development Board
Mr Leo Yip Seng Cheong, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Manpower
Mr Tan Boon Huat, Chief Executive Director, People’s Association
Mr David Conner, Chief Executive Officer, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation
Dr Olaf Duebel, Managing Director, Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd
Mr Michael Denoma, Group Executive Director & Chairman of Consumer Banking, Standard Chartered Bank
Ms Lien Siaou Sze, former Senior Vice President, Hewlett-Packard Services, Asia Pacific
Major-General Lim Kim Choon, formerly Chief of Air Force, Republic of Singapore Air Force
Brigadier General (NS) Tay Lim Heng, Chief Executive, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore

No prize for guessing why he asked his speech to be removed.[/i]

what Viswa did before he was even norminated by the pap as nmp was his past records with the above companies..mr VISWA is a brilliant stragistist he know his way aroun
unfortunately mr VISWA is also a DECENT man who lived amon us the commonor..he is just reprentin us the fellow singaporeans in his maiden speech in the house of parliament, he didn’t have any ill intentions of challengin the olegheezer @ all…it just that as usual leekuanyew just waltz in with gunblazin gungho attitute without even consultin the 3 wisemen who is no longer livin or aroun..P.S.. if anybody think the 3 wisemen is the prataman/senileminister/and the holy prince..than singapoorium is finished..habesh………
mr VISWA bein a common charimakan orang have to do some self survival to protect his ricebowl..we wouldn’t want him to be another the belated honourable jb jeyaratnam..would we?
and as eric pointout..mr VISWA is smart he used the Chatham House Rules to be protected in ANY event….

Eric, what a rational mind!
It couldn’t have been put better.

Dear Eric,

You made some very persuasive arguments – I’ll hand that to you.

You questioned, “who would you want to be speaking for Singaporeans in the Parliament?”, and then cited your preference for one who is able to keep himself alive over a martyr. You are more willing to place your hope on one who works silently behind the scene.

I get a strange feeling reading your comments. If only more Singaporeans exercise this level of mature thinking towards our Alternative Representatives (I stand corrected for using the term ‘opposition’), then I think we can expect to see blue skies over the horizon soon.

Unfortunately, we are not quite there yet. In fact we are still very close to where we started. I therefore have to question what your persuasions have achieved. Surely they must all translate to something. What is it that we want it to translate to? Are we going to be dependent upon the NMPs from now on? What can the NMPs do? I mean, what can they REALLY do?

If the comments here is any mean of measurement to go by, I must say that the impression here is that they can do nothing – especially when someone like MM is still alive and kicking. It is sad but it is the truth. Even if MM were to leave soon, the MSM, under the collective stranglehold of the PAP, will continue to play the role that MM had been playing – the moderator, corrector and author of Singapore’s history and interpreter of policies, rules and regulations.

I can give VS the chance he needs to prove himself but I can never give the chance to the NMP position that he is using. It stifles alternative representation.

I think conspiracy theories do not help this discussion to go forward, so please stop referring to Viswa’s client list. There are only so many major companies in Singapore, so it is not surprising that “these firms” appear in the list.

The Chatham House Rule reads, “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed”.

In another words, TOC is free to use the speech as long as it does not attribute the speech to NMP Viswa Sadasivan. I don’t think this issue has anything to do with his NMP status at all.

No wonder we all deserve a regime under LKY

Just look around the sacrasm post posted here. If you’re so good, so darling, why not stand out and protest openly.

Dear AC,

Thanks for a second clarification. Let’s put it this way, I have my views and I do respect your views as an individual. I am very aware of this rule set as I was one of the many posters who did post comment that has breached this limit in multiple occasions on other articles published and was told to repost it in multiple parts. Personally, I do respect this house rules (as the owner of this site is still TOC and they have every right to selectively approve of any moderation rule set). However, I still stand-by my opinion and view it as “selective” approval process. The same “selective process” had been played out in this clarification letter to inform readers why VS request the retraction of the published article. To me, I see an important missing link (not disclosed here) after reading through both replies thoroughly and took the pain to first understand the basics of “Chathum House Rule” before even penning my comment.
What really transpired between TOC reporter and VS assistant? Did TOC reporter make sure that VS assistant was authorized to give the final approval (it seemed to me an assumption was made ~ whether it was deliberate or an oversight only TOC reporter can attest to it)?

As much as I appreciated and supported TOC since I began commenting here a year ago, IMHO their effort is laudable given most of them are on part time basis with no funding at all. However, at times some articles published here only revealed half truth (i.e. a single side of the coin) of the story. I do take issues with what I deemed as responsible and impartial journalism. If we are being vociferous in condemning highhandedness and shoddy bias MSM reporting and wanting to advocate better accountability and transparency, true democracy, support for unconditioned human rights, freedom of speech & expression, and all good values for the betterment of this tiny nation…etc, I think before we cast a stone on others for not upholding these good values that I believe a majority of us here and Singaporeans out there at large are trying hard to spread the words, let’s put into practice what we tried so hard to preach.
Simply put, walk the talk as many like to coin this phrase. What credibility is there if one does not practice what one preaches? How different are you to the perceived MSM and the likes when your mission value has been distorted by your own “bias” actions?

You can say I am nip-picking, but as I have said we are all humans of different perspectives and values. Real democracy has a price to pay and a value to uphold. We are far from being a nation of people who truly understand what democracy is. If we maintain the same mindsets and see things with tainted glasses with hasty judgment and followed with blind faith, it will take years before we get there (if we get there).

As for my view of VS on both his speech (including his closing rebuttal at parliament…etc), I had made it quite cleared, as I do not believe at moment we can come to any judgment just based on two events. I can only wished that he continues to live up to his believes and hopefully run for office someday. I am impressed thus far by what he had delivered publicly (at face value) and looking forward to hearing more of him in future. As to his past (as studiously published by concerned posters), don’t we all have a past? What’s important is looking forward, are we on the right track? Surely, if given a chance to vote, we will not give away our precious votes to someone that we do not support their notion brought forth, don’t we?

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

217) irobot on September 1st, 2009 2.03 pm ,

no wonder he relented and step backward. yet to prove whether he is with public and this ‘clients list’ group.

time will tell!

Gemami (#219),

I completely agree with you about the NMP scheme. We are caught in a quandary – the NMP scheme bastardizes and ridicules the democratic process, but at the same time, it provides the avenue for (some) good men and women to enter the political arena without subjecting them through the unfair election system.

We won’t see the likes of Siew Kum Hong if the NMP scheme never materialized or that it suffered a stillborn in its inception.

And you’re spot-on when you say that we should give Mr. Sadasivan an opportunity to prove his cause and calibre, but we should constantly remind ourselves that the NMP scheme is an insidious strategy to deter Singaporeans from truly challenging the incumbent through elections.

And I agree with your assessment of the mainstream media. But I also want to stress that the journalists are not a monolithic whole too. Many have independent and critical minds, but unfortunately are constantly stone-walled. I recall back in the 2006 GE, I know journalist-friends who were called ugly names by incumbent leaders, accusing them as sympathizers of other political parties. There’s only so much you can push the envelop before you’re handed the pink slip. To some extent, I admire those who stay on to fight a good fight, or rather, slip in a slap or a karate chop once in a while. :)

How to change Singapore?

Singapore’s political landscape will only when the majority of the heartlanders feel it’s time to change. Right now, the incumbent still enjoys a stronghold at the grassroots.

Besides the two non-PAP MPs, my sensing is the political alternatives are not working the ground sufficiently. I’m not saying that’s their fault. Without the resources and manpower, it’s almost impossible to project one’s influence, to gather feedback, to extend assistance (and favors, depending how you see it) to engage and convince the heartlanders that they are a viable alternative to the incumbent.

If their engagement with Singaporeans remain in cyberspace or within the educated, little will shift in their favor. If their actions are limited to manifestos, nothing will change. Politics is all about resource mobilization, and you cannot mobilize support if you don’t get your hands dirty. Look at how Barack Obama made use of grassroot organizations, it’s a classic.

Singaporeans, being a pragmatic lot, also need to see concrete change, even if the change is only a minuscule improvement. But if the political alternatives are willing to get their hands dirty now, and I mean right now, and go deep in the trenches of our heartland, there’s a possibility that things may turn around. I believe Singaporeans are a reasonable lot. If they see continual effort and good intentions, they are more willing to place a bet.

Unless we want to be like Japan, to just wait for the incumbent to screw up big time, (way bigger than MSK or the current financial debacle), then things may shift towards the political alternatives. When that happens, it’s not because the political alternatives have become better, but because heartlanders are finally fed up. The danger will be, the political alternatives may still lack the calibre to govern the nation.

At that point, we’re truly screwed.

Sincerely,
Eric

VS if you read this, I think you did the right thing.

I have very little interest in the things that you are passionate abt, and so skim thru reports on you and what you say. But when I skimmed thru the TOC report, my heart skipped a beat. And I didn’t think much of you.

I now know that it was a balls-up.

For those who call him ball-less — hey why are you posting anon? If you don’t have the balls to speak out publicly, you have no right to criticise him.

Anyway, an agreement is an agreement as another poster has written.

For those TOC fans, you may want to ask the circumstances under which it came to the conclusion that VS’s assistant had given approval and that she had the authority. You may want to know if TOC passed the test of reasonabless or whether it was negligent or reckless.

Otherwise, let’s move on.

Oh before I forget, TOC. I hope that you will accept that there are people out there (self included) who think TOC has become politised. We may be wrong, but the perception exists. And we believe that based on what you publish, a reasonable person can decide that we are reasonable in our view.

We Singaporeans are a pampered and lazy lot. Happy to sit at our computers and spew our views without lifting a finger to shift our thoughts into action. And even in saying what we do, the majority of us hide behind our fancy pseudonyms. On what leg can we stand to criticize anyone? I even wonder how many of us really and truly want change. And if we do, let’s stand up and actually demonstrate that we do. By now, reading all the comments, there should be so many opposition parties in the making.
We are so wishy-washy, blowing hot and cold. And here is one man amongst us who stood up and spoke, whose views are not cloaked in anonymity. If we cannot even begin to appreciate that first step that one amongst us has taken, then I’m afraid we have no hope. Better just continue to have our hands held, be led, enjoy the material benefits and comforts, sit pretty in the Bubble. Once in a while we can throw a tantrum – we have cyber space for that.

Viswa should quit as NMP and join the opposition! What a waste for him to be NMP! If he is elected as an MP, he do not have to ‘kowtow” to PAP!

Now we get a clearer picture of NMP…. they are elected by papies not us.
What’s the point you go to a “close door” speech and don’t allow the media to publish the speech content… catch no balls!!! ??? or may be he has no balls…. haha

You can bet States Times will be lapping it up if the speech is pro-PAP ideals, and that will be ok even if out of context.

We want clever people to live in this stupid place? Think again!

I think the heat is too hot on him. Isn’t it so? He needs time and space to cool off. Is that not so? And I think he doesnt want to be a tool of TOC. Is that not so?

The fact that this had to happen reflects badly on the garment.
In a country where there is democracy, not democracy aspired,
where fair comment is allowed, nay encouraged, Viswa’s two
speeches would not have batted a single eyelid.
It is really sad that in self-proclaimed democratic Sinkapoor
anyone without a good word to say about the garment has to
constantly look over his shoulder for fear of being victimized in
some way or other.
Viswa is just your average citizen voicing his concerns about
what he sees as things going wrong and asking the garment to
put them right. Nothing wrong, right? Wrong! In Sinkapoor you’re
expected to “sit down and shut up” if you have nothing good to
say about them. Such is the climate of fear built up over many
decades of according “special treatment” to detractors and
dissidents that our instinct for self-preservation is honed to a
fine edge. There is no need for ob markers as we are self-
censuring ourselves to death!

“Viswa should quit as NMP and join the opposition! What a waste for him to be NMP! If he is elected as an MP, he do not have to ‘kowtow” to PAP!”

He owes PAP a living lah. He knows it. He will never join opp party. I bet my Sparky’s dog food on it. He kowtow? My goodness he wanted to hold balls but didn’t do it as he expected. :<

wah mr Viswa Sadasivan i think i are very good in talking.

too bad you are not a lawyer.

if you are lawyer, people want to sue you also difficult to win you.

i think there is a very very famous lawyer that sue people who anyhow say things few years ago also will lose to you. forget his name. very famous one.

because you use heart to talk.

if there are a very good lawyer like you that can help ngos to fight court case when they are sue, then singapore will be a even more democratic society.

happiness, prospersity and progress for us.

#224,
“Besides the two non-PAP MPs, my sensing is the political alternatives are not working the ground sufficiently. ”

I cannot disagree with you. This is what I feel as well.
To be honest, living in hougang, I have never met a WP member or any opposition member walk up to me to chat. I say again, NEVER.

I dun know what these people are doing.

Opposition parties all over the world have progressed recently.

sigh….

Maybe, it makes sense to import new citizens with better genes? like more creative , garang and able?

Hi Eric,

“Many (journalists) have independent and critical minds, but unfortunately are constantly stone-walled” : Eric.

The most unfortunate and sad thing about Singapore is that we have enough talents to hold our own but yet chooses to confined them into quarters that serve to entrench the stranglehold on power of an elite group of people.

The same model is transplanted in every government institution including the entire civil service – the latter geared more toward a PAP service than a civil one. What is even worse is that those independent bodies that are supposed to uphold justice and equality are also given in to adopting this model of serving the PAP elites more than the people. Examples are our court of law, our police and particularly, our news mediums.

I agree that change can come about if our heartlanders decide so but I will stop short of being too over optimistic. There are the many PAP tentacles to content with, as mentioned above. For me, the most telling ones are the ridiculous re-drawing of electoral boundaries, the threat of defamation suits and the distortions of facts by our MSM.

However, you did mention an excellent point – the role of the grassroots – and using it to lend better reach to the heartlanders. It is sad, very sad, that the alternatives are not doing as much as we hope they would.

Our hopes rise with every election only to be killed of immediately after. They really need to review their outreach programs. As you have commented, Singaporeans can see through honesty and sincerity, and will not shy away from giving support to those who fall into these descriptions.

But you know what? I still get the feeling that we could just end up like Japan before we start to see changes. It may already be too late for regrets now.

Lky has finally made a’ great blunder’ by introducing Mr Viswa as a NMP to Singaporeans. Perhaps he isn’t aware of the ‘damage’ he has done to his ‘Dynast’y'! Far-sighted & yet ’slip’ of the mind?It is unfortunate that he failed to realize that even an elephant can slip & fall!

By providing the exposure(platform) for Mr Viswa, he has unknowingly ‘ thrust’ Mr Viswa into the ‘limelight’ where Mr Viswa ‘conquered’ the hearts of most, if not all Singaporeans with his Maiden Speech! Yes, it is ‘Love at first sight’ -here to stay for a long long time. He shot to popularity overnight, which none of the pappies were able to.

Sure, we are bitter with MR Viswa over a ‘recent ‘controversy’ (if i may say so) regarding the removal of the speech @ LK school of Public Policy on TOC, but it is more like a ‘lovers quarrel’ which will take care of itself when this issue is blown over, because deep down we know that Mr Viswa was genuine when he made both the speeches, and that he will continue to be so in the future. No one has made such an impact on us up till now or even ‘moved’ us to this degree.

He could be ‘planted’ & all this could be a’ wayang’ with him as the’ lead actor’. Let it be, so what, the outcome will speak for itself when the time comes.
But, my guess is, Mr Viswa could be testing the ground just like the pappies may be ‘testing’ him too!
He may be using the ‘platform’ (given to him so willingly), to ‘understand’ Singaporeans better, what our million-dollar salaried ministers failed to do!

Whether he came in’ willingly’ or ‘was necessitated’, is of little importance to us.Now that he is here, he knows he needs to do -treading the ground cautiously without being ‘cornered’ or even being ‘checkmated’!
In his own words:
“Heroes are important, ………………… but dead heroes are of no use to anyone, at at least in the Singapore context.
A living hero?

Lets not forget, he is a strategist and must be a good one too, otherwise he wouldn’t have been chosen as a NMP by the REGIME!.
Don’t they always pick the best ones & turn them into goons!
But not this man, he knows his strategy, that is why he is so confident.
A leader in the making with the charisma of LKY 50 yrs ago(my parents used to ‘adore’ lky)-minus the aggression!

Maybe from now onwards, our politics will not be so boring anymore.
Let’s see what happens after 2 yrs……,
It ‘may’ be possible after his term, Mr Viswa may just resign from his NMP post & stand for elections as an Opposition & GARNER all our votes or chose to ‘join’ the pappies & lose our votes & trust completely, or even leave politics entirely!
Its either this or that or that, there is no ‘middle-path’ in politics!

My view is, instead of ‘brick-batting’ him, just because he is not taking our side, lets not doubt his sincerity.
We have been waiting for almost 50 yrs for dawn, what is another 2 yrs?
Lets wait & see what unfolds………
Let him do what he came to do, perhaps, he IS ‘playing’ our kind of music, with ’subliminal messages’ we only need to ‘listen’…..

We can’t deny the fact that the NMPs will chosen by a selection committee that was 100% PAPy [ with the exception of the confused, ineffective, singlish-speaking LTK ]
Gone are the days when this selection committee would have chosen another Siew Kum Hong.
The present batch of NMPs, i am sure, were thoroughly vetted by the selection committee to make sure that deep inside they are all pro-PAP.
Therefore, i am thoroughly convinced that Visva Thamby ( Thamby in tamil means younger brother, not the old deragatory meaning LKY used where thamby means an odd-job worker in the office during the 1950s to the 1960s )
So we had the appearance of Thamby as an NMP in parliament.
So, like any self- respecting thamby, Thamby wanted to perform some heroics in parliament ( if you have seen tamil movies, you would know what i mean )
But unfortunately after 1 or 2 stunts Thamby had a change of heart, and decided to leave the heroics-bit out of his act. He remembered that he was very much obligated to his masters, otherwise his rice- bowl would have been smashed into smithereens.
So to cut a long story short, this is how i see it . in this saga of Thamby in parliament.

234) fffyugyut on September 1st, 2009 10.58 pm

“…if you are lawyer, people want to sue you also difficult to win you.”

So, why are so many lawyers not joining the opposition to help the country beef up our loyal opposition?

237) Self Preservation on September 2nd, 2009 10.45 am

“So, why are so many lawyers not joining the opposition to help the country beef up our loyal opposition?”

How about this explanation :
Regardless whether you are really holding the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth, you will definitely lost your case in the court of law in Singapore, if you are defending yourself against a certain god (you know who I refer to).

So what if many lawyers can articulate or defend their positions or views with the truth/fact, when up against a particular “wise” man there is only one napshot outcome in the court of law in Singapore.

Sometime, you could be haul to the court of law for a silly reason when the “wise” man deemed you as a threat, especially to his political idealogy/survival.

Does the explanation above answer your question? Hahaha……

That was why I said Viswa was a wise man…… Self Preservation indeed.

Loyal? Yes! Opposition? Dont play play OK!

A lover’s spat?……very innovative……

The NMP scheme is a throwback, a reversion to British colonial era.

When Singapore was a British Crown Colony, the colonialist had a system of appointing local representatives to its legislative council/assembly to stem the tide of growing resentment of the people against colonialism.

These “representatives” were invariably those who had benefited financially and materially from the oppressive colonial rule. They were hoisted by the British and their local lackeys as community leaders who could feel the pulse of the populace.

Now, after having turned the parliament into its rubber stamp, the PAP, in order to appease and check the resentment of the citizenry against its authoritarian rule wants to have NMPs, claiming that these people are non-partisan and objective.

But who appoints these NMPs and who heads the “selection” process?

Let’s not degenerate into feudal warp.

“So, why are so many lawyers not joining the opposition to help the country beef up our loyal opposition?”

These lawyers should join hand and seek the support from IBA to seek justice for all the victimized singaporeans from those corrupted elites. Without foreign and international support, no one can even touch any of those MIW as they’ve already build themselves a non-penetratable protection inside the country they rule.

43) tiredsingaporean

“These lawyers should join hand and seek the support from IBA to seek justice for all the victimized singaporeans from those corrupted elites”….

Do you really believe that ‘our lawyers’ would even ‘dream ‘ of doing such a thing for fellow singporeans?
Please don’t delude yourself.
Lawyers are also ‘elites’ , they only care for their kind.
The ones who dare will end up in IMH & made to look like psychos. This is
Singapore, get real!

It is the commoners like us who care & want something to be done, not the elites.
Did you ever come across any elite who has shown any concern for the unfortunate Singaporean up till now?
Elites live in their own world like our like our ministers, mps, nmps, you name it. They are well taken care of by our MIW…..perhaps we should start looking for MIB (Man In Black)! :)

If anything needs to be done, it is we, who have to do it, other that ‘ranting’ here & there, & waiting for some ‘heroic NMP’ be to to ’save’ us!

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1002470/1/.html

“Many voters now tell us openly – “my family, three of us vote for you but two of us voted against you”. Just to let you know we want an opposition voice and we don’t want you to be so overwhelming. So in that case you may have a freak result and that worries me. So we have a president with blocking powers,” said Mr Lee.

Mr Lee said: “I spent 15 years thinking out these safeguards and finally persuaded my younger colleagues that we needed this because they can’t guarantee that they’ll each time provide a better team than the opposition, just because it has been done in the past. No problem in next election, but maybe after that – if we don’t find a good team in elections after that – we are at risk.”

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1002470/1/.html

Political leaders cannot be trained, but must be found, says hiding the man in white

Mr Lee said: “I spent 15 years thinking out these safeguards and finally persuaded my younger colleagues that we needed this because they can’t guarantee that they’ll each time provide a better team than the opposition, just because it has been done in the past. No problem in next election, but maybe after that – if we don’t find a good team in elections after that – we are at risk.”

[...] media needs to rebuild broken trust, says Viswa Sadasivan [Thanks Reikoko] [Recommended] – TOC: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC – Singapore Recalcitrant: No racial inequality in Utopian Singapore? – TOC: The Singapore Story – [...]